Judgment M. P. Varma, J. A very short point has been convassed for decision by this Court, whether the appellate authority under the Municipal Survey Act, has the power to review its own under. 2. In order to appreciate the point it is necessary to state briefly the facts of the case. The petitioner is the purchaser of some land with a house thereon in Mohalla Purani Bazar in the town of Muzaffarpur. The purchase was made under a registered sale-deed dated 14.10.1963. The petitioner thereafter made an application for mutation of her name in the Municipal records. It is stated that during the survey operation under the Municipal Survey Act, the land including the house was recorded in the name of the petitioner. Respondent no. 3 however, raised an objection under section 9 of the said Act, which was registered as Case no. 40/75 before the Assistant Superintendent of Survey at Muzarffarpur. The learned Assistant Superintendent after hearing the parties allowed the objection by order dated 26.7.1977 vide annexure 1'. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said orders made an appeal to the Superintendent of Survey, who is the appellate authority under the Municipal Survey Act. The respondent was also noticed and she contested the claim of the petitioner. The learned Superintendent after hearing the parties and on consideration of the evidence and the facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the appeal and set aside the earlier orders dated 26.7.1977 (vide annexure 1') passed by the Asst. Superintendent of Survey with the result that a clear direction was issued to exclusively record the name of the petitioner in the Khanapuri regitar. A copy of the appellate order has been filed along with application as annexure 2'. 3. It is stated that after a lapse of about more than a year respondent no. 3 again filed an application for review of the appellate order with a prayer to recall the same. The petitioner of course appeared and flied objection stating herein that the review petition was not maintainable. But in spite of the objection raised, the learned Superintendent of survey by his order dated 19.11.1979 set aside the earlier order dated 21.12.77 (vide annexure 2') and restored the order of the Asst. Superintendent of Survey dated 26.7.1977. A copy of the review Order dated 19.11.1979 has been filed as annexure 4 to this application. But in spite of the objection raised, the learned Superintendent of survey by his order dated 19.11.1979 set aside the earlier order dated 21.12.77 (vide annexure 2') and restored the order of the Asst. Superintendent of Survey dated 26.7.1977. A copy of the review Order dated 19.11.1979 has been filed as annexure 4 to this application. It is this order which is under challenge on a short and simple ground that the Statute did not confer any right on the Superintendent of Survey to review his own order, passed in appeal and as such, the order impugned is without jurisdiction. 4. Sri Mangal Mishra appearing on behalf of the respondent has contended that respondent no. 3 is the wire of the petitioner's husband's brother and it was respondent no. 3 who had made a joint purchase out of the nucleolus of the joint family and that the property in question did not exclusively belonged to the petitioner. Mr. Mangal Mishra has contended that in view of this the equity and Justice required that the orders under appeal which were passed on a wrong assumption or facts be revised and corrected. 5. I have given duo consideration of the points raised by the Counsel for the parties. It cannot be denied that the power of review it a creature of Statute. It is not an inherent power. It must be conferred under some Statute or it may be followed by necessary implication in some cases. But so far as the instant case is concerned, it is abundantly clear that the appellate authority had passed the orders (annexure 2) after full consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and on hearing the parties concerned, and there was no occasion for reviewing the same, inasmuch as any attempt to review is wholly without Jurisdiction. 6. It will be relevant to state here that the impugned order, is contained in annexure 4' apart from fact being without Jurisdiction, is short and criptic and does not, show the circumstances which compelled the authority to review it. own order and no reason has been assigned for it. 7. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case the application succeeds. The order contained in annexure ‘4' is set aside. Respondent no.3. if so advised, may seek remedy in appropriate court which might be available to him in law. own order and no reason has been assigned for it. 7. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case the application succeeds. The order contained in annexure ‘4' is set aside. Respondent no.3. if so advised, may seek remedy in appropriate court which might be available to him in law. 1 do not propose to pass any order as to cost. Application allowed.