Delegated revisional power carries ancillary review power, but review cannot become a fresh merits reassessment of title and possession.

Where revisional power is delegated, the delegate may exercise the ancillary review power attached to that revisional jurisdiction, because the delegate stands in the place of the principal. An order made by the delegate is treated as the principal's order, so the Board cannot revise or review that order again by treating it as a separate decision. Review remains confined to correction of errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be expanded into a fresh merits inquiry on title and possession; those substantive issues were left for independent determination in the pending civil suit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner, acting as delegate of the Board of Revenue under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958, could exercise the Board's power of review under the Orissa Board of Revenue Act, 1951; (ii) whether the Board of Revenue could revise or review orders passed by its delegate under the 1958 Act; (iii) whether the Commissioner, while exercising review jurisdiction, could reopen factual findings on title and possession.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner, acting as delegate of the Board of Revenue under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958, could exercise the Board's power of review under the Orissa Board of Revenue Act, 1951.

Analysis: The revisional powers under sections 6D, 15, 25 and 32 of the 1958 Act were validly delegated to the Commissioner under section 33. The 1958 Act did not itself confer a review power on the Board, but the general review power in section 7 of the 1951 Act applied to orders passed by the Board in revision under the 1958 Act. The Court further held that when the Board's revisional power is delegated, the delegate personifies the principal and can exercise the ancillary power of review necessary to correct errors in the revisional order. Denying review to the delegate while allowing it to the Board itself would create an irrational distinction.

Conclusion: The Commissioner could exercise the Board's review power while acting as its delegate in revision under the 1958 Act, and this was in favour of the respondents.

Issue (ii): Whether the Board of Revenue could revise or review orders passed by its delegate under the 1958 Act.

Analysis: An order passed by a delegate in exercise of delegated power is treated as an order of the principal. On that principle, the Board could not revise its own order by calling for revision of the delegate's order. Likewise, review was impermissible because review lies to the same authority that made the order, or its lawful successor, and the Board was not the authority that heard and decided the matter in the first instance when the Commissioner acted as delegate. Permitting such review would amount to an indirect revision of the delegate's order.

Conclusion: The Board could neither revise nor review the delegate's order, and this was in favour of the respondents.

Issue (iii): Whether the Commissioner, while exercising review jurisdiction, could reopen factual findings on title and possession.

Analysis: Review jurisdiction under the 1951 Act was confined to correction of mistakes or errors apparent on the face of the record and was not an appellate or plenary jurisdiction. On that footing, the Commissioner could not enlarge the review into a fresh merits adjudication on title and possession. At the same time, because a civil suit on title was pending, the Court declined to pronounce on the merits and left the earlier findings and observations open, directing the trial court to decide the suit independently on the evidence produced.

Conclusion: The review power could not be used to undertake a full merits reassessment on title and possession, and the issues were left open for decision in the pending civil suit.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of with the legal position clarified on delegated review power and the limits of review jurisdiction, while the substantive title and possession questions were left to be decided by the civil court uninfluenced by the impugned and revisional orders.

Ratio Decidendi: Where revisional power is delegated, the delegate may exercise the ancillary power of review attached to the principal's revisional jurisdiction, but such review remains confined to correction of errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot become a fresh adjudication on merits.

---