The power of review under Section 38-A of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act is limited to clerical or arithmetical mistakes and does not extend to re-examination or re-appraisal of materials.

JUDGMENT :

G.B. Patnaik, J. - The order of the Member. Board of Revenue, dated 21st of January, 1994, in purported exercise of power u/s 38-A of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act in Review Case No. 1 of 1993, annexed as Annexure-5, is being challenged in this writ application, inter alia, on the ground that the Member, Board of Revenue, exceeded his jurisdiction in exercising the said power as well as on the ground that the documents relied upon by the said Member, Board of Revenue, were, in fact, interpolated and as such, could not have formed the basis of a conclusion.

2. The dispute centres round in respect of certain properties in villages Saroi and Neulpur and the said dispute was before this Court in OJC No. 2280 of 1987. The said writ application was disposed of by judgment dated 11-10-1991 and the matter was remitted to the Member, Board of Revenue, with a direction that he will allow opportunity to the parties concerned to lead evidence for determining the dispute as to whether the disputed properties in the two villages were. In fact, subject-matter of reference made by the Collector u/s 13-D(2) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act to the Tribunal constituted u/s 18-C of the said Act for determining whether the properties formed a part of the trust estate or not, as per the Gazette Notification under Anntxure-9. After the matter went back on remand, when the Member, Board of Revenue, took up the hearing the parties did not appear though the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, indicates that certain written arguments had been produced by the counsel appearing for the parties. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, heard the learned Standing Counsel representing the State and on consideration of materials on record disposed of the matter by judgment dated 24th of October, 1992. The said judgment has been annexed as Annexure-2. The Member, Board of Revenue, came to the conclusion that the disputed lands did not form a part of the trust estate and the said matter was never before the Trust Estates Tribunal. After the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, dated 24th October, 1992 as per Annexure-2, the opp. parties filed an application for review before the successor Member, Board of Revenue, u/s 38-A of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act which was registered as Review Case No. 1 of 1993. The said review application having been disposed of by order dated 21st of January, 1994, the present writ application has been filed.

3. Mr. Mishra appearing for the petitioners contends that the succeeding Member, Board of Revenue, has taken into consideration several materials which had not been produced before his predecessor and has re-appraised the entire materials and had reached a conclusion contrary to his predecessor's conclusion which is not permissible u/s 33-A of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act and, therefore, the order is without jurisdiction. He further contends that the said conclusion is base upon certain interpolated documents and, therefore, the conclusion is vitiated.

Mr. Mohanty appearing for the opp. parties, on the other hand, contends that the earlier order having been passed ex pane, the Member, Board of Revenue, had the power of review u/s 7(1) of the Orissa Board of Revenue Act, 1951, and, therefore, no illegality has been committed by re-hearing the matter and re-disposing of the same in accordance with law. According to Mr. Mohanty, substantial justice having been done by the succeeding authority, the same need not be Interfered with.

4. In view of the rival stands of the parties the first question that arises for consideration whether the Member, Board of Revenue, having disposed of the matter pursuant to the observations of this Court on 24th of October, 1992, annexed as Annexure-2, was it permissible for the succeeding Member to review the same either in exercise of power u/s 38-A of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, or u/s 7(1) of the Orissa Board of Revenue Act, as contended by Mr. Mohanty. In order to apprec