IMPORTANT POINT
Power of review is an integral part of administration of justice.

Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.—The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 7.2.2002 passed by the Assistant survey Settlement Officer in suit No. 158/98 filed under Section 106 of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) whereby he had dismissed the petition dated 28.12.2002 filed by the petitioner for recall of the earlier order dated 7.2.2002.

2. Heard learned counsels for the petitioners, the State and the respondent Nos. 4 to 6.

3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that after 14 years of final publication of record of rights, Suit No.158/98 was filed by the respondents No.4 to 6 under Section 106 of the Act. After about 4 years of filing of the aforesaid suit, a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the suit had been filed by the aforesaid respondents. A copy of the aforesaid limitation petition has been annexed by the petitioners to this writ application as Annexure 5. It has been urged that from perusal of Annexure 5. It would be manifest that no ground for condoning the delay had been disclosed therein except a bare statement that the respondents did not have knowledge of the distribution of khatiyan. Learned counsel submitted that the aforesaid cryptic limitation petition had been allowed by the impugned order dated 7.2.2002 without disclosing any reason for such condonation of delay. The said order has been passed by the respondent No. 3, Assistant Settlement Officer, Rosera, as would be apparent from the order itself, considering the same to be a case under Section 6 of the Limitation Act. It is contended that even after about 4 years of filing of the concerned suit, the respondent No.3 had condoned the delay behind the back of the petitioners without issuing notice on the point of limitation. Further contention was that a bare perusal of Annexure 5 would also disclose that no case had been made out by the concerned respondents bringing the same into the ambit of Section 6 of the Limitation Act. By the aforesaid order, the suit was also admitted and summons were issued upon the petitioners. The petitioners appeared in response to the summons of the authority concerned and filed a petition dated 28.12.2002 for recall of the earlier order whereby the delay had been condoned and to declare that the suit was not competent to proceed as the same was hopelessly time barred. Learned counsel raised a question of law by making a submission that the authority under the Act being the creature of the statute can derive only such power which has actually been conferred upon them by the various provisions thereof. Learned counsel drew attention of this Court towards Section 106 of the Act. According to such provision, a suit may be instituted before a Revenue Officer within three months from the date of certificate of final publication of record of rights under sub-section (2) of Section 103A of the Act. It is contended that the suit was filed after about 14 years and the authority under the Act was not competent to condone the delay. It was also urged that the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 would neither be attracted nor be applicable in such cases.

4. In support of her submissions learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon a decision of this Court rendered in Kanti Kumari @ Manju Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors. 1998(3) PLJR 490. It is submitted that in almost identical matter where delay of 12 years in .filing of suit was condoned by the authority and objection filled by the recorded land holder was rejected, it had been held by this Court in the aforesaid case that the suit preferred beyond the period of limitation would not be maintainable as being time barred and the authority had no jurisdiction to condone the delay in the absence of any pleading entitling a benefit under Section 6 of the Limitation Act. In this case also, it is contended, delay has been condoned under Section 6 of the Limitation Act but no ground could