ORDER

M. M. DAS, J. — The petitioner has filed this writ applica¬tion challenging the order dated 23.5.2003 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate, Khandhamal-Phulbani in O.P.L.E. Revision Case No.1 of 2003 rejecting the revision application of the petitioner by passing the following order :

“This is put up today, I have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner. This is barred by limitation as it is filed after eleven months from the date of orders of the lower Court. There has been no application for condonation of delay. I am not inclined to admit the petition.

Pronounced in the open Court.”

The said order has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-8.

Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Addl. District Magistrate has committed an error apparent on the face of the order quoted above by rejecting the revision application on the ground of limitation as there was o accompany¬ing application for condonation of delay. He submits that the power of revision under the O.P.L.E. Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is provided under Section 12(2) of the said Act and Section 13 of the said Act provides a period of thirty days as prescribed period for preferring an appeal under Section 12(1) of the Act commencing from the date of decision or order complained of. But, however, no provision is made under the Act prescribing a period of limitation for preferring a revision under Section 12(2) of the Act. Mr. Jena therefore contends that since no period of limitation is prescribed under the Act, Arti¬cle 137 of the Limitation Act which is the residuary article will be applicable to a revision under Section 12(2) of the Act which prescribes a period of three years as the specified period for filing an application for which no limitation is prescribed under the Limitation Act.

Mr. P. K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate per contra submitted that Section 12(3) of the Act provides for a suo motu revision by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner and the power of revision to be exercised under Section 12(2) is similar to that which can be exercised under Section 12(3) of the Act. He further submits that in case of suo motu revision under the Orissa Land Reforms Act as well as under the Estate Abolition Act, where no period of limitation has been prescribed, this Court in various decided cases has held that such revision can only be entertained within a reasonable period from the date of the impugned order.

Section 12(2) and (3) and Section 13 of the Act are quoted below for reference :

“12. Appeal and revision-(1) xx xx xx

(2) The Collector may revise decision or order made by a Sub-divisional Officer under Sub-section (1) or under Section 7 or Section 8-A.

(3) The Revenue Divisional Commissioner having jurisdiction may call for and examine the records of any proceedings under this Act before any officer in which no appeal or revision lies and if such officer appears-

(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law; or

(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or

(c) while acting in the exercise of his jurisdiction, to have contravened some express provision of law affecting the decision on the merits, where such contravention has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice, if may, after giving the parties con¬cerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass such order as it deems fit."

On a plain reading of Section 12(2) of the Act, we find that the revision referred to in the said section is in respect of a revision application filed by any party aggrieved by an appellate order made by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Sub-section (1) or Section 7 or Section 8-A of the Act, whereas the suo motu revi¬sion provided under Sub-section (3) of Section 12 confers a suo motu power on the concerned Revenue Divisional Commissioner to call for and examine the records of any proceeding under the Act before any officer in which no appeal or revision lies (emphasis supp