ORDER This is a review petition under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 against the orders of this very court dated 18-12-1981. The review petition was listed for admission today, which was objected to by the learned counsel for the respondents and the representative of the Relief & Rehabilitation Department. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of admission of the petition is that though the earlier petition was submitted and disposed of under Section 33 of the said Act, it should be deemed to have been disposed of under Section 24(4) of the said Act as that section provides for the filing of a revision petition within one month from the passing of the orders by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the same was filed within the prescribed period. He referred to the decision of the Honble Punjab High Court in Civil Writ No. 1638 of 1961 PLR 1952, page 714, wherein it was held that "the Central Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act is the ultimate repository of residuary powers, but these powers can be exercised only in a manner which is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. The powers to review its own orders by the Central Government on the same facts and circumstances cannot be implied either on general principles of law or the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder^. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the decision referred to by him implied that review could be made if some new facts and circumstances were involved. He further added that in this case also the review was sought not on the same facts and circumstances but on facts and points of law which had not been considered on earlier occasion, 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that such review applications had been admitted by this court on earlier occasions and one such application was entertained under Rule 106 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that such review applications had been admitted by this court on earlier occasions and one such application was entertained under Rule 106 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that once the residuary powers of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act have been exercised, review powers could not be exercised in absence of a specific provision in the law to that effect. In support of his contention, he cited the decision of the Punjab High Court in LPA No. 63 of 1971 and Civil Misc. No. 1209 of 1971 PLR-li>72-page 749 wherein it was held :— "that proceedings under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act are of a quasi judicial nature and an Officer exercising powers under that section cannot review his order unless power to do so was given to him by the statute itself. There is no inherent power of review and this power has to be given specifically under the Act. The only power of review has been given to the Settlement Officer and that only under Section 5 of the Act. The Central Government has not been entrusted with any power of review, and an officer authorised to exercise powers under Section 33 of the Act has no jurisdiction to review his earlier order and extend time for the deposit of the balance of the sale price." 5. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties. A plain reading of Rule 106 will show that this rule lays down the procedure for submission of review application but does not confer the jurisdiction on any court or officer for review. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no specific provision under the Act for review by the Central Government or an officer exercising the powers of the Central Government of its orders passed under Section 33 of the said Act. The decision of the Honble Punjab High Court referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent is on the same point. The decision of the Honble Punjab High Court referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent is on the same point. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Honble Punjab High Court, I hold that the Central Government or an officer exercising the powers of the Central Government or an officer exercising the powers of the Central Government has no power to review its own orders passed under Section 33 of the said Act; though it is unfortunate that the petitioner did not avail himself of the opportunity under Section 24 (4) while seeking relief on earlier occasion. 6. This decision also disposes of review petition No, 18/82 in which the same point is involved. Order accordingly.