https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460908 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not the proper forum for conclusively determining disputed title to immovable property, because such questions require civil adjudication and revenue entries do not by themselves create or extinguish title. Revisional power under Section 9 is confined to subordinate revenue orders and cannot be exercised by the Collector to revise or recall his own earlier order. Allegations of fraud may justify reopening only through a proper enquiry based on notice, pleading, and evidence; a fraud-based recall cannot be sustained without such a foundation. en-us Fri, 04 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Mar 2025 11:17:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460908 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not the proper forum for conclusively determining disputed title to immovable property, because such questions require civil adjudication and revenue entries do not by themselves create or extinguish title. Revisional power under Section 9 is confined to subordinate revenue orders and cannot be exercised by the Collector to revise or recall his own earlier order. Allegations of fraud may justify reopening only through a proper enquiry based on notice, pleading, and evidence; a fraud-based recall cannot be sustained without such a foundation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 04 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460908