An administrative authority cannot review its own order vesting a right in another unless it be on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or other similar grounds.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition challenges the order of the Board of Revenue, reviewing its previous order granting patta to a ryotwari land under the proviso to Sec. 11 of the Estates (Abolition and Conversion in Ryotwari) Act, (26 of 1948) (herein-after called the "abolition Act" ). The petitioner and the 3rd Respondent were riral claimants for the grant of a ryotwari patta, before the Settlement Officer, who, after hearing both the parties and considering the rival claims, submitted A report to the Board of Revenue, in favour of grant of a patta to the petitioner. The board of Revenue confirmed this order on 4-6-1960, granting patta to the petitioner patta was accordingly issued to him and since then he is paying cist to the Government. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent applied for a review of that order, before the Board of Revenue on the ground that he was not heard.

( 2 ) HE also raised other contentions on merits, and prayed for a review of the order and to grant patta in his name. The Settlement Officer stated that the order granting patta cannot be reviewed, and that if at all, the 3rd respondent can file a revision before the Government. Notwithstanding this clear position taken by the Settlement Officer, the Board of Revenue, on a report of the Tahsildar that it was a darimila inam and not a kammi jeroyiti, reviewed the order, holding that the Board of Revenue had not given an opportunity to the 3rd respondent of being heard and since the grant of a patta is an administrative order, it could always review it. Accordingly, the Board of Revenue reviewed the order, cancelled the patta of the petitioner and directed the Settlement Officer to make a fresh enquiry. This writ petition is filed against the said order.

( 3 ) IT is now indisputable that even in cases of administrative orders once those orders have taken effect by vesting a right in another, that order which vests that right cannot be reviewed by the administrative authority, unless it be on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or other grounds well-recognised as justifying the setting side of orders or documents, made or executed. As early as in the Secretary of State for India in Council v. Kasturi Reddy a Bench of the madras High Court had held that a grant which purports to have been made under the darkhast rules by an officer empowered by them to make it is a grant made by a person authorized in that behalf and has the validity of a grant made by the Governor in Council, and that such an officer is an agent generally or specially appointed by the Governor in Council in that behalf and his acts, if within the scope of his authority, are as binding on the Crown as if they had been done by the Governor in Council. Bhashyam Ayyangar, J. , observed at page 283 thus:"when the proposal of an applicant is accepted by an officer duly authorised in that behalf by the dharkast rules and the acceptance is communicated to the applicant, there is a valid contract and disposal of the land, unless the grant was procured by fraud, misrepresentation or mutual mistake as to any matter of fact essential to the agreement (Indian Contract Act, sections 17, 18. , and 20 ). The grant, therefore, cannot be annulled or revoked by the officer who made the grant, or by his successor in office or even by the Governor in Council. Under the very terms of the authority conferred upon the various classes of officers, a grant of land made by any one of them within the scope of his authority is subject only to one condition, i. e. , it may be revoked or annulled by an officer of a higher grade on appeal preferred to him"this principle was affirmed in State of Andhra v. Gangappa- which was also a case under the dharkast rules. It was held that the Dharkast rules do not ex- pressly provide revisory powers for the Government; that it cannot be said that the Government has any residuary power in it for revising decisions on account of its being the last owner of the land and that bec