Recall of settlement orders is limited to fundamental jurisdictional defects, not mere irregularities in notice or procedure.

A settlement order may be recalled only in exceptional circumstances such as fraud, collusion, patent lack of jurisdiction, or a fundamental defect like total non-service of a necessary party. Section 38A of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 allowed only limited correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes, so it did not support a broader review power. A defect in publication of notice, a belated application, or misclassification of the proceeding as a claim case rather than a lease case was treated as an irregularity, not a jurisdictional nullity. The recall/review order was therefore without jurisdiction and could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Collector had power to review or recall the settlement order, and whether the alleged defect in publication of notice, or the objections based on limitation and the nature of the application, justified setting aside the settlement as a nullity.

Analysis: Section 38A of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 provided a limited review power only for clerical or arithmetical mistakes, and the proceedings in question were not brought within that provision. Any power to recall had to be traced, if at all, to an inherent authority to set aside an order only in exceptional situations such as fraud, collusion, patent lack of jurisdiction, or a fundamental defect such as total non-service of a necessary party. A mere defect in the manner of publication of notice, even if assumed, amounted at most to an irregularity and not to a jurisdictional infirmity. Likewise, a belated application, or a mistaken treatment of the matter as a claim case rather than a lease case, did not deprive the Collector of jurisdiction; a court or tribunal may decide wrongly, but that does not make its order a nullity where jurisdiction over the subject-matter and parties exists.

Conclusion: The recall/review order was without jurisdiction and could not stand; the challenge to the original settlement failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A judgment or order may be recalled only for patent lack of jurisdiction, fraud, collusion, or comparable fundamental defects, and not for mere errors, irregularities, or issues that could have been raised in the original proceedings or corrected in appeal.

---