JUDGMENT:- The only point that arises for consideration in this civil revision petition is whether the Authorised Officer can suo motu revise his own order, granting exemption and turning round to say that by bona fide mistake he had rendered judgment and thereby revise his own judgment. 2. It is common ground that the Authorised Officer in his order, dated 8th November, 1972 in P-8/TVR/MRI/70 D has observed as follows: “The Special Deputy Tahsildar (Land Reforms) Kanchipuram who inspected the exempted lands has reported that an extent of 5.26 ordinary acres for which exemption was granted under section 73 (viii) for growing fuel trees has been cultivated with paddy, gingelly groundnut, etc, in violation of the conditions of exemption. Verification of the village accounts and enquiry of the village karnam have also confirmed the violation of the condition. The landowner was enquired in the matter during enquiry, the landowner has stated that the conditions of exemption were not violated as long as they were in his holdings and it was only after the lands were sold by him, the purchaser has violated the conditions. On verification of this office records, the orders dated 8th June, 1974, already granting exemption under section 73 (viii) are also found to be incorrect. I therefore include the exempted extent of 5.26 ordinary acres equivalent to 3.00 standard acres in the holdings of the land owner and declare an extent for 3.90 standard acres as surplus in the case.” The observations made above, according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is assuming jurisdiction which is not vested with the Authorised Officer because when once exemption had been granted under section 73 (viii) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Reduction of Ceiling on Land) Act XVII of 1970 , and that was found to be incorrect by it by subsequent investigations, it is under appeal provided under section 8 of the Act the aggrieved Authorised Officer can agitate the matter and cannot suo motu include the exempted extent of 5.26 ordinary acres equivalent to 3.00 standard acres in the holdings of the land owners and declare an extent of 2.90 standard acres as suplus in this case. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner in this regard refers to the decision in Chellammal and another v. The Authorised Officer, Land Reforms Madurai and another1, as well as decision in Syed Rabia Beevi v. The Authorised Officer2. 3. In Chellammal and another v. The Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Madurai and another1, one R died on 2nd August, 1961, possessed of 45 standard acres of land and leaving his widow and a married daughter. The Authorised Officer examined the question of ceiling and found as a result of the devolution by the law of succession of the property of the deceased to his widow and married daughter, each will get lands below the ceiling, that the case did not come under the purview of the Act. On the question whether the Authorised Officer could revive the proceedings of the administrative directions of the Board of Revenue, it was held by this Court that the Authorised Officer having made an order that the Act would not apply in the circumstances of the case, would have no jurisdiction vested in him to revise and continue the proceedings under the Act, that it would not be correct to say that the proceedings would be pending till the final publication under section 12 of the Act, that the proceedings under the Act are intended to find the excess and if the Officer passed an order that there was no excess that order would be final and that no provision is to be found in the Act to reopen such an order. By referring to the above short notes reported, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that in the instant case, the very same attitude had been exhibited by the Authorised Officer which has been actually prohibited by the ratio decidendi of the above said decision rendered by this Court. In this regard, the decision in Syed Rabia Beevi v. The Authorised Officer2, which arises out of section 15 of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Celling on Land) Act LVIII of 1961, exhibits the following ratio decidendi “Section 15 having regard to the language employed, does not amount to the usual power of revision. The mistake that can be corrected under section 15 (a) is in regard to an entry in the final statement. The mistake that can be corrected under section 15 (a) is in regard to an entry in the final statement. It follows, therefore, that if the entry in the final statement is based upon the earlier decision after hearing the objections under sections 10 and 12 , it is not contemplated that section 15 is to cover such a situation. What appears to be the scope of section 5 is that it applies to mistakes in the correctness not of the merits but of the form of entry in the final statement, just as section 15 (b) is directed against clerical or arithmetical mistake”. 4. In the instant case, it is not the clerical error or the bona fide mistake contemplated under section 15 of the Act that is sought to be revoked by the order under revision; but the Authorised Officer who revised his own order resorted to a fresh assessment regarding the determination of the exemption. This is certainly revising its own order which cannot be done under the provisions of the Act. If it was aggrieved, certainly as pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner herein, the provisions of section 78 ought to have been resorted to. There is absolutely no provision in the enactment which justifies such a revision indulged in by the Authorised Officer. Thus the order under revision becomes revisable and is hereby revised. The revision petition is allowed with costs. R.S. ----- Petition dismissed.