An order passed by a Court or Tribunal without jurisdiction is a nullity and can be ignored whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon.

P. K. MOHANTI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is a deity enshrined at village Biswanathpur, P. S. Satyabadi in the district of Puri, It seeks issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 2-2-78 (Annexure 1) and the order dated 2-6-78 (Annexure 2) passed by "the Estate Abolition Collector (opposite party No. 14) and the Additional District Magistrate (Land Records), Puri (opposite party No. 15) respectively.

( 2 ) ON an application filed by the petitioner under Sections 6 and 7 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, opposite party No. 14 by his order dated 2-4-66 passed an order of settlement in favour of the petitioner in respect of the lands covered by khata Nos. 431 and 438 of village Biswanathpur. The rent schedule was accordingly issued and rent was realised from the date of settlement. No appeal was filed under Section 9 of the O. E. A. Act and the order became final. On 247-74 opposite party Nos. 1 to 12 who are residents of village Panibhandar. P. S. Satyabadi district Puri filed an application for review of the order of settlement dated 2-4-66 on the sole ground that the public notice of the claim had not been served at the locality in accordance with the manner prescribed by law. Opposite party No. 14, in the purported exercise of the powers under Section 151, C. P. C. reviewed the order of settlement on 27-9-74 and by his final order dated 2-2-76 directed that the lands should be recorded in the Anabadi Khata of the village and should not be settled in the name of the ex-intermediary.

( 3 ) THE petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dated 2-2-76 which was passed after review. The appeal was registered as O. E. A. Appeal No. 5/76. O. P. No. 15 allowed the appeal, set aside the order in Annexure 1 and remanded the case to O. P. No. 14 for a fresh disposal in accordance with the lease principles. He found that there was no express power of review conferred on the O. E. A. Collector under the O. E. A. Act; but the action of O. P. No. 14 in passing the order dated 2-2-76 could be interpreted as a case of recalling an order which, on account of failure to follow the mandatory provisions of Section 8-A (2) of the Act, was a nullity. He also found that the petition under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act was not maintainable as the same was not filed within the prescribed period of limitation. He further found that the petitioner Gopinath Deb not being the ex-intermediary the application under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act was not entertainable.

( 4 ) THE petitioner's contention is that the order dated 2-2-76 passed On review was without jurisdiction and that the question whether the earlier order dated 2-4-66 was a nullity could not be gone into by O. P. No. 14 except by way of a review. It is also contended that the opposite party No. 15 went wrong in deciding the question of limitation as such a question was not raised in the application for review. It is further contended that the view taken by O. P. No. 15 that the order of settlement was a nullity is unfounded.

( 5 ) THE stand taken by the opposite parties is that the O. E. A. Collector had no initial jurisdiction to enter upon the enquiry regarding the settlement of the land since the application under Sections 6 and 7 was made beyond time and the right to make such an application had been extinguished. It is also contended that the mandatory provisions of Section 8-A (2), first proviso, not having been complied with the order of settlement was a nullity and could be ignored even though there was no express power of review.

( 6 ) IN this writ application we are not called upon to examine the validity of the order of settlement dated 2-4-66. The questions that arise for consideration are:-

(1) Whether the opp. party No. 14 could review his earlier order dated 2-4-66 by invoking the powers under Section 151, C. P. Code? (2) Whether the opp. party No. 14 could recall or ignore the order dated 2-4-66 treating the same to be a nullity?

( 7 ) THE term "review" me