IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO.596 OF 2001 (M/S) Menpal S/o Sube Ram ………Petitioner Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation & another …Respondents Dated: February 15, 2010 Sri Tapan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Sri K.C. Tewari, Brief Holder for the State Sri Sharad Sharma, Sr. Advocate for the respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to issue writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15.03.2001 passed by the respondent no.2 on the review application filed by the respondent no.2-Shamshad (annexure no.3 to the petition). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. As per the case of the petitioner, sometime ago, the consolidation scheme started in the area in question. The Chakbandi Lekhpal divided the Plot No.399 in two parts, one part is 399/1 while the second part is plot no.399/2. The area of the aforesaid plot no.399 was found excess on spot at the place of recorded area in the revenue record. It is further stated that the Lekhpal Chakbandi shown the whole excess area in the name of the respondent no.2, however there was no division on spot of the aforesaid area and even the Lekhpal Chakbandi had no right to divide the aforesaid plot in two parts. The petitioner also raised an objection in this regard before the Assistant Settlement Officer and thereafter filed an appeal in the court of Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The Assistant Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation rejected respectively the objections and appeal of the petitioner in this regard. After that the petitioner filed a Revision in the court of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar u/s 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 as Revision No.5 of 2000-2001, Menpal Vs. Shamshad and others, who after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, allowed the revision of the petitioner by order dated 23.12.2000 and quashed the orders dated 28.10.1997 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation and order dated 29.10.1994 passed by the Consolidation Officer. Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.12.2000 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the respondent no.2 filed a review application no.49 of 2001 before the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1-Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 15.3.2001 allowed the review application moved by the respondent no.2 and recalled its earlier order dated 23.12.2000. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has come up before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation had no power whatsoever to review its order which has been passed on merits and th`e order passed on the review application is wholly without jurisdiction. I find force in the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is settled law that an authority being a judicial or quasi judicial, can only correct any clerical mistake/arithmetical error, manifest error in his order in exercise of his inherent power, but he cannot recall the final order passed by it. I am fortified in my view with the judgment of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Shivraji & others Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation Allahabad & others reported in 1997 (88) Revenue Decisions Page 562. Paragraphs No.36 and 41 of the aforesaid judgment are relevant to mention which reads as under: - “36. Coming to the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, it is our considered view that the consolidation authorities, particularly the Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding a revision petition exercises judicial or quasi judicial power and, therefore his order is final subject to any power of appeal or revision vested in superior authority under the Act. The consolidation authorities, particularly the Deputy Director of Consolidation, is not vested with any power of review of his order and, therefore, cannot reopen any proceeding and cannot review or revise his earlier order. However, as a judicial or quasi judicial authority he has the power to correct any clerical mistake/arithmetical error, manifest error in his order in exercise of his inherent power as a Tribunal. 41. On the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs it is our considered view that it is not open for the consolidation authorities to review/recall their final orders passed in proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in exercise of inherent powers. Thus, the question formulated earlier is answered in the negative. The writ petition will be placed before the appropriate Bench for disposal in the light of this judgment.” Thus, keeping in view the law propounded by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court, I am of the considered view that the Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding a revision petition exercises judicial or quasi judicial power and, therefore, his order is final subject to any power of appeal or revision vested in superior authority under the Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is not vested with any power of review of his order and, therefore, cannot reopen any proceeding and cannot review or revise his earlier order. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid, the order dated 15.3.2001 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar in Review Application No.49 of 2001 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 15.3.2001 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is set aside. However, the respondent no.2 shall be at liberty to challenge the order dated 23.12.2000 before the appropriate forum. Costs easy. (Dharam Veer, J.) 15.02.2010 Rajeev Dang