J.N. Bhatt, C.J.
1. In both these applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, common questions are involved. Therefore, upon request, they have been heard together and are being now disposed of by this common judgment.
2. A few material relevant facts may be highlighted at the outset to examine the merits of the petitions.
3. The subject matter of the petitions has been the land bearing municipal survey plot No. 23 Chandar No. 1 having an area of 1-1/2 Katha in CWJC No. 6552 of 1988 and Plot Nos. 38 and 38/1 having an area of 1 err and 20 points and 10 dhurs, respectively, in CWJC No. 6553 of 1986, both in Ward No. 6 of the Purnea Municipality, Mohaila Bhatt, P.S. K. Hat, District Purnea, which hereinafter will be referred to as the disputed properties.
4. Following aspects are no longer in controversy:
(i) the petitioners purchased the disputed properties by registered sale deed in the year 1949 and 1977. The name of the petitioners came to be recorded in the record of the municipality in the year 19 78 in terms of Section 9 of the Bihar & Orissa Municipal Survey Act, 1920 (In short the '1920 Act') and Rule 9 of the Bihar 4 Orissa Municipal Survey Rules. (In short 'the Rules') , after filing of objection by the petitioners claiming the disputed lands.
5. Section 9 of the Act incorporates how to deal with objections, in respect of the disputed properties. All objections which may be made within the prescribed period of publication, to any entry or to any omission from the record, shall be disposed of by such officer and in such manner, and subject to such appeal, if an}', as may be prescribed. In terras of Section 9 of the Act, rules are framed under the Act in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15 of the Act, known as Bihar & Orissa Municipal Survey Rules.
6. The provisions of the 1920 Act provides to make provisions for the survey and record of land situated in municipalities in Bihar & Orissa. Under Section 2(e) of the 1920 Act, survey is defined which includes identification of boundaries and all other operations, antecedents to or connected with survey whereas power to order survey and record is provided in Section 3 of the act. Section 9 deals with the provisions for disposal of objections in respect of the change in the records of land in the Municipality of Bihar & Orissa after undergoing process prescribed in Sections 4 to 8.
7. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners are purchasers in respect of the disputed properties. The State of Bihar preferred an appeal against the order passed under Section 9 of the Act and Rule 15 of the Rules which came to be dismissed on 28.12.1984. There does not seem to be any provision for review or revision under the 1920 Act. Despite that the respondent State of Bihar took the matter in revision suo motu Notice came to be issued to the petitioner which they have challenged in these two writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Notice is produced as Annexures 4 and 4/1.
8. The main grievance which is voiced in these two writ petitions has been that the action of the respondent State of Bihar in issuing the notice for review of the earlier two orders concurrently recorded by the two authorities are. without jurisdiction and illegal. Prima facie, it appears there is no provisions of review or revision in the 1920 Act or the Rules framed thereunder.
9. Power to review or revision could not be said to be inherent in the authority in such matters. Power is to be conferred under the provisions of the Act or the Rules. Unless specific provision has been incorporated for review or revision, the matter cannot be taken up in revision or review.
10. The proceedings under 1920 Act, as well as, Rules do not admit of any review or revision of the order recorded by the authorities under the Act. in respect of the disputed property.
11. Learned Counsel for the respondent has not been able to show under what provision of law the matter has been taken and the proceedings have been initiated in review or revision against the concurrent findings of the two survey authorities under 1920 Act, as well as, the rules. This Court is satisfied that the action in issuing notice and the proceedings of revision by the respondent State are without any sanction of law and legal. Therefore, notices shall stand quashed in both the petitions.
12. In the result, both the applications shall stand allowed. Rule is made absolute. No costs.