S. B. SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) ONE of us P. S. Narayana, J, by order dated 27-7-2001, has referred the following question to this Full Bench for its opinion: whether the authorities under the A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural holdings) Act, 1973, have the power of review despite the fact that there is no specific provision dealing with the said power of review under the Act.

( 2 ) MR. Bakshi, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the primary Tribunal is a statutory authority, and it is not a Court for its jurisdiction is confined only to the A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural holdings) Act, 1973. He submits that inasmuch as there does not exist any power of review in the primary Tribunal, it dismissed the review application, and the appellate Tribunal has thus committed an illegality in reversing the decision of the primary Tribunal. He further submits the only power vested in the primary Tribunal in this regard is contained in Rule 16 (5) (b) of the A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974.

( 3 ) THE learned Government Pleader for land Ceiling appearing on behalf of the state on the other hand contends that the appellate authority exercised the power of review because fraud was alleged, and it was found proved, and therefore, it reversed the order of the primary Tribunal.

( 4 ) IT is disputed before us that the primary tribunal is a statutory authority and is not a court, and that it being a statutory authority has to exercise its power within the four corners of the statute. The primary Tribunal also does not have any inherent power, a power, which is otherwise vested in a Court.

( 5 ) POWER of review can be classified into two groups - procedural review and substantive review. Every Court or Tribunal has inherent powers, so far as procedural review is concerned, for example in a case where an order has been passed by a Court without compliance of the principles of natural justice, the Court may recall such an order.

( 6 ) IN Grindlays Bank v. Central government, the apex Court in para 6 held: we are of the opinion that the Tribunal had the power to pass the impugned order if it thought fit in the interest of justice. It is true that there is no express provision in the Act or the rules framed thereunder giving the Tribunal jurisdiction to do so. But it is a well known rule of statutory construction that a Tribunal or body should be considered to be endowed with such ancillary or incidental powers as are necessary to discharge its functions effectively for the purpose of doing justice between the parties. In a case of this nature, we are of the view that the tribunal should be considered as invested with such incidental or ancillary powers unless there is any indication in the statute to the contrary. We do not find any such statutory prohibition. On the other hand, there are indications to the contrary.

( 7 ) THE aforementioned view was reiterated in several other subsequent decisions.

( 8 ) IT is, however, trite to say that in the absence of any provisions, a power of substantive review does not exist in a statutory authority. Rule 16 (5) (b) of the rules, as noticed hereinabove, confers a limited power upon the Tribunal, which power is akin to the provisions of Sec. 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the Code ). So far as the power of review of civil Courts is concerned, the same is not governed by Section 152 of the Code, but is governed by the provisions of Section 114 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1 thereof. It must, therefore, be held that no substantive power of review inheres in the Tribunal or appellate Tribunal.

( 9 ) ATTENTION of the Court was drawn to the decision of one of us S. B. Sinha, C. J. in gandaiah v. Govt. of A. P. wherein in para 8, it was observed: so far as the second question raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is concerned, the same is also covered by a decision of a Full Bench of this court in R

Click Here to Read the rest of this document