Review power must be statutory; a settlement order was not a nullity for alleged limitation or notice defects.

The power of review is not inherent and exists only where conferred by statute; accordingly, the Estate Abolition Collector could not review or recall the settlement order under Section 151 CPC. Section 38-A of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act permitted review only within one year and only for a clerical or arithmetical mistake, and those conditions were not met. The settlement order also could not be treated as a nullity merely because limitation or procedural irregularity was alleged, since an authority competent over the subject-matter does not lose jurisdiction by deciding wrongly. On the notice issue, the record did not prove total non-service of the proclamation, so the order was not void on that ground.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Estate Abolition Collector could review or recall the settlement order by invoking Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the earlier settlement order could be treated as a nullity so as to be ignored on the grounds of limitation or alleged non-compliance with the notice requirement.

Analysis: The power of review is not inherent and can be exercised only if the statute expressly confers it. Section 38-A of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act authorises review only within one year and only on the specified ground of clerical or arithmetical mistake. The Collector therefore had no jurisdiction to review the settlement order under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the statutory conditions for review under Section 38-A were also absent. An order can be ignored as a nullity only where the authority lacks inherent jurisdiction over the subject-matter or parties. A mere error in deciding limitation does not make the order a nullity, because a court or tribunal competent over the class of cases does not lose jurisdiction by deciding wrongly. On the notice issue, the record did not establish total non-service of the proclamation. The objection related only to the manner of service, and in the absence of evidence showing complete non-compliance, the settlement order could not be treated as void. Since the Collector had jurisdiction to decide applications under Sections 6 and 7, the order was not rendered a nullity merely because limitation or procedural irregularity was later alleged.

Conclusion: The Collector had no power to review or recall the settlement order under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the order of settlement could not be treated as a nullity on the grounds urged.

---