Finality under special revenue law bars review; later confirmation of the sale was beyond jurisdiction.

Where a special revenue statute confers no express power of review and treats the original order as final, the authority cannot reopen and reverse its own concluded decision; a later order confirming the revenue sale was therefore without jurisdiction. The sale certificate also barred a challenge based on alleged non-service of notice of sale, and the evidence did not establish any link between notice defects and inadequacy of price. The plaint was validly amended after remand because the claim was not time-barred and the amendment only regulated relief, including mesne profits, from the date of decree.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner had power under Act XI of 1859 to review and set aside his earlier order cancelling the revenue sale, and whether the subsequent order confirming the sale was valid; (ii) Whether, in light of the sale certificate, the challenge to service of notice of sale and adequacy of price could be entertained; (iii) Whether the plaint was properly amended after remand.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner had power under Act XI of 1859 to review and set aside his earlier order cancelling the revenue sale, and whether the subsequent order confirming the sale was valid.

Analysis: The statutory scheme contained no express provision authorising a Commissioner or Revenue Authority to review an order once duly made under the Sale Law. The word "final" in Section 25 of Act XI of 1859 was read as excluding review, not merely appeal. The reasoning was reinforced by the absence of any extension of the Code of Civil Procedure provisions on review to proceedings under the relevant Bengal revenue enactments, and by the supervisory remedy vested in the Board of Revenue. On that footing, the earlier order setting aside the sale remained effective and the later order purporting to reverse it was beyond jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Commissioner had no power to review his earlier order, and the order confirming the sale was ultra vires and ineffective, in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether, in light of the sale certificate, the challenge to service of notice of sale and adequacy of price could be entertained.

Analysis: The judgment records that there was sufficient evidence of service of the notices, and that the certificate of sale barred a contention based on non-service of notice. The finding also noted that there was no direct evidence linking alleged inadequacy of price with any defect in notice.

Conclusion: The challenge on notice and price was not established, in favour of the respondent.

Issue (iii): Whether the plaint was properly amended after remand.

Analysis: The amendment and joinder of co-sharers were treated as permissible because the claim was not barred by limitation and the amendment only regulated relief, including mesne profits, from the date of decree.

Conclusion: The amendment of the plaint was properly allowed, in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the decree in favour of the respondents was maintained, with the cross-appeal also not pressed and therefore not pursued further.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special revenue statute does not confer a power of review, and provides a separate supervisory remedy, a revenue authority cannot treat its own final order as open to review; any subsequent contrary order is without jurisdiction.

---