BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE short point for consideration is Whether the Assistant Commissioner, tarikere - Sub-Division, Tarikere is conferred under the Act with the power of reviewing his own order passed earlier at the instance of the same applicant? ( 2 ) ANNEXURE-D shows that on 29. 4. 1980 the Assistant Commissioner has intimated by an endorsement issued to the applicant that his applicaton has been rejected for resumption of possession of the land in question. Again, under Annexure-E dated 23. 11. 1982 on another application made by the same applicant, the same assistant Commissioner has issued the endorsement that the second application cannot be entertained since an earlier application was rejected on 29. 4. 1980. Thereafter, for the third time the applicant approached the Assistant Commissioner and an order came to be passed on 11. 1. 1985 ordering resumption of the land. Against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the appeal was rejected by the deputy Commissioner, Chikmagalur on 7. 8. 1985. ( 3 ) I am surprised to see that an order which is the out-come of exercise of the jurisdiction not vested in the Assistant commissioner has been sanctified by the deputy Commissioner contrary to the letter and spirit of law. No provision in the Act empowers the Assistant Commissioner to review his own order. In the instant case, the assistant Commissioner has committed an act of administrative excess in arrogating to himself a power which the statute does not confer upon him. The Deputy commissioner cannot lend legitimacy to jurisdictional error of the Assistant commissioner. ( 4 ) HOWEVER, it was contended by the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of th State that only endorsements were issued on 29. 4. 1980 as well as 23. 11. 1982 and they cannot be equated to an order passed in the usual course by the assistant Commissioner. I have examined both the endorsements and I am satisfied that the endorsements communicated the decisions taken by the Assistant commissioner after considering the application of the applicant for resumption of land. The words "that the earlier applicaton was dismissed on 29. 4. 1980" are sufficient to hold that there was an order passed by the Assistnat commissioner rejecting the earlier application. The words "that the earlier applicaton was dismissed on 29. 4. 1980" are sufficient to hold that there was an order passed by the Assistnat commissioner rejecting the earlier application. When such an order has been passed, the Assistant commissioner has no authority to re-examine his own order unless the law permits him, by express provision, to do so, by way or review The law has not provided for such a review. ( 5 ) THE scope of judicial review of jurisdictional error is within the ambit of article 226 of the Constitution and, therefore in exercise of that power, I quash1 the impugned orders of the Assistant commissioner as well as the Deputy commissioner. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I allow this writ petition and quash the impugned orders - Annexures A and F. ( 7 ) IN the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .