The main legal point established in the judgment is that a quasi judicial authority cannot review its own order unless the power of review is expressly conferred on it by the Statute under which it derives its jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Jitendra Kishore Verma and learned counsel for the respondents Sri Mukund Mohan Jha, learned AC to GP 27 and Sri Ramakant Sharma, learned senior counsel for the Intervenors.

2. The present writ application has been filed seeking quashing of Resolution dated 31.5.1996 (Annexure 5) passed by Sri M. Kumar, IAS, Addl. Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna in Revision Case no. 17/1994 whereby Addl. Member Board of Revenue remanded the Ceiling Case no. 102/1965 to the trial court for passing a fresh order after determining age of the petitioners, further for quashing the District Gazette Notification no. 95 dated 23.6.1993 published by the Collector, Rohtas by which land of the petitioners has been included in the land of the land holders.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that issue which arises for consideration in the present case is whether the Addl. Member Board of Revenue while passing the order dated 31.5.1996 exceeded his jurisdiction, when issue had already attained finality in view of order dated 30.4.1989, passed by Addl. Member Board of Revenue in Revision Case no. 109/1988.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that certain relevant facts as culled out from the writ petition are necessary to be stated for arriving at just conclusion for deciding the case. Learned counsel submits that one Kedar Nath Rai had three sons namely, Jang Bahadur Rai, Lal Bahadur Rai and Tej Bahadur Rai. It is submitted that Land Ceiling Case no. 102/1965 was initiated against Jang Bahadur Rai, the land holder and uncle of the petitioners, in ceiling proceeding the land holder was shown to have possessed 214.22 ½ acres of class III land, further the verification report pointed out that there are six adult members in the family and also gave details of alienation of land by gift and sale. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that SDO, Bhabua allowed four units to the land holder, as such the land holder was allowed to retain 100 acre of land and 114.22 ½ acres of land was declared surplus. Thereafter, land holder preferred Ceiling Appeal no. 8/1984 before the Collector, Rohtas but the same was rejected by order dated 10.2.1984. After the Ceiling Appeal no. 8/1984 of the land holder came to be dismissed by order dated 10.2.1984 passed by the Collector, Rohtas, land holder filed Revision Case no. 104/1984 before the Board of Revenue which was allowed by order dated 13.8.1985 and the matter was remanded back to the Collector for disposal in accordance with law, accordingly, file was transferred to the Addl. Collector, Rohtas. Learned counsel submits that when the matter was remanded back by order dated 13.8.1985, petitioners appeared in the case and filed their objection stating that 19.84 acres of lands were gifted to the petitioner no.1 by two registered gift deeds dated 16.1.1962 and 18.4.1963 respectively by her father and grand father and the land gifted pertained to plot no. 477 khata no. 40 and plot nos. 478 and 489 khata no. 31 and plot nos. 382, 391, 344, 380 and 346 of khata no. 109. Learned counsel submits that thereafter 6.02 acres of lands pertaining to plot nos. 355, 376, 390, 367 and 389 of khata no. 109 was also gifted to petitioner no.2 by her father by gift deed dated 18.4.1963, it is submitted that after the lands were gifted the same came in possession of the petitioners and land was mutated, Jamabandi was created and they were paying revenue to the government. Learned counsel further submits that apart from objection raised by these petitioners, the land holder also raised objection before Addl. Collector stating that 3.30 acres of land was gifted to Ramgarh college and 8.25 acres of land was transferred to Pradhlad Rai much prior to commencement of the Act.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Addl. Collector disposed of the appeal by order dated 8.3.1988 rejecting the claim of the petitioners but allowed the objection of the