JUDGMENT Mootham, C.J. - This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Broome dated 27-7-1960. A petition was filed in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in which the present Respondents challenged the validity of an order dated 3 2-1959 made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut. on the ground that the Deputy Director had by that order purported to review an earlier order made by him u/s 48 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953. That petition was allowed by the learned Judge who directed that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation be quashed. 2. Learned Counsel for the Appellants contends that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had the power to review his earlier order and that the learned Judge erred in holding otherwise. Three grounds have been advanced in support of this contention. The first is founded on Section 41 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act. That Sections reads thus: Unless otherwise expressly provided or under this Act, the provisions of Chapts. IX and X of the UP Land Revenue Act, 1901, shall apply to all proceedings including appeal and applications under this Act. 3. Ch. X of the Land Revenue Act includes Section 220 which confers upon the Board of Revenue the power to review its own orders in certain circumstances and it is contended that in applying this section to proceedings under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act a power of review must be deemed to be conferred upon the Deputy Director of Consolidation who corresponds to the Board of Revenue in so far as he is the final Court of revision. In our opinion this argument is not well founded, for Section 41 makes no provision for the modification, alteration or adaptation of any of the sections in Ch. IX and X of the Land Revenue Act in their application to proceedings under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act. Section 220 specifically confers the power to review is own decision on the Board of Revenue and on no other authority and it is not possible for this Court to hold that under that section read with Section 41 of the UP Consolidation of, Holdings Act a power to review its own decision is conferred upon all Deputy Directors of Consolidation. 4. 4. The second submission is that every court has an inherent power to review its own decision. This argument as the learned Judge pointed out, is concluded against the Appellants by the decision of this Court in Debt Prasad v. Sri Khelawan 1956 AWR (HR) 29 in which it was held that, subject to certain qualification with which we are not now concerned, a court has no inherent power to review its own decisions. 5. Finally, it is argued that Section 48 of the UP Cons libation of Holdings Act itself confers upon a Deputy Director of Consolidation the power to review his own orders inasmuch as it confers upon that officer the power to "pass such orders in the case or proceeding as he thinks fit." This argument we think also to be not well founded. Section 48 certainly confers upon a Deputy Director of consolidation the power to pass such orders as he thinks proper but having once passed such orders it does not expressly nor in our opinion, by implication confer upon him the power to set aside his earlier order and pass another order in its place. 6. We are of opinion that there is no substance in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.