A quasi-judicial authority does not have the inherent power to review its earlier order in the absence of a specific provision conferring such power.

B. L. Yadav, J.

1. Whether a quasi-judicial authority has got power to review its earlier order sanctioning the plan and approving the map under sections 14 read with section 15 of the U. P. Urban Planning and Developments Act, 1973 (for short the Act), even though the said power is not provided under the provisions of the Act. is the short but significant question for our determination in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by the petitioners, seeking the relief for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent, the Allahabad Development Authority not to initiate any proceeding against the petitioners for cancellation of the approved map and plan on the basis of two notices (Annexures 3 and 4 to the petition), served on the petitioners, and also for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 22-10-86 cancelling the map and order dated 21-10-86.

2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass and are almost admitted. The petitioners were tenure holders and owners of plot no. 63/1 area 2 biswa situate in village Beli Mustkharja Tehsil Chail, district Allahabad, within the limits of Municipal Corporation Allahabad In respect of the area where the plot in dispute is situate a declaration 'as a development area', has already been made under section 3 of the Act. A permission in writing from the Vice-Chairman of the Allahabad Development Authority was required as contemplated under section 14 of the Act. The petitioners made an application for permission referred to in section 14 of the Act, as provided under section 15 of the Act and for approval of the map. After making requisite enquiries contemplated under the Act, permission to raise construction was granted and the map was approved, by order dated 25-6- 86 (Annexure-1) Thereafter even though under the Act there was no provision for review of the order granting permission to raise construction, after approving the map, nor there was any provision for appeal against the order granting such permission, but nevertheless the Allahabad Development Authority sent notices to petitioners through letters dated 1-9-86 and 24-9- 86 (Annexures 3 and 4), directing them not to raise construction on the basis of permission granted or the map approved and in case any such construction was raised that would be unauthorised and petitioners shall be liable for prosecution as contemplated under section 27 of the Act. The petitioners filed objection to those notices on 16-10-86 (Annexure-5) that they did not conceal any material fact in respect of their title nor there was any provision for review nor any power to reconsider the order granting permission or approving the map. But in view of the order dated 21-10-86 and 22-10-86 the map was cancelled. It was further stated that the petitioner's father Ram Sunder Dubey was recorded over the land in dispute since prior to 1358 Fasli and was continuously so recorded. Just in one year without any notice to petitioners there was an entry showing it to be 'nazul-land'. Neither prior to that, nor subsequent to that, there was any such entry. In fact, the plot in dispute was not nazul land and all enquiries were made before granting permission for raising the construction (vide Annexure-1). Petitioners filed the aforesaid writ petition in this Court, against the aforesaid letters and notices.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent stating that notices were legally served on the petitioners for not raising the construction and alleging that the permission obtained by the petitioners was not correct hence notices were served on them directing not to raise any construction (vide Annexures 3 and 4), As the counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed, learned counsel for the parties suggested that the petition may be disposed of on merits. Consequently the present petition is being disposed of on merits.

3. Sri C. L. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that there was no p