JUDGMENT : G.B. Pattnaik, J. - The order passed by the Land Reforms Commissioner under Annexure-6 and the order of the Addl. District Magistrate under Annevure-5 are being challenged in this writ application, Inter alia, on the ground that these authorities committed gross error in coming to the conclusion that the opp. party No. 1 was entitled to deposit the amount of compensation within one year of the appellate order and thereby the penalty attached to the non-payment of the amount will not be attracted. 2. The short facts of the case are that opp. party No. 1 filed an application u/s 4 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act to be declared as an occupancy raiyat under the petitioner. That application was disposed of by order dated 28-7-1970 ex parte and the Revenue Officer directed that the said opp. party No. 1 should pay the compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 367.15 to the petitioner within one year from the date of the order failing which the land will revert back to the petitioner. The said order has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ application. This order was challenged in appeal in O.L.R. Appeal No. 230 of 1970, but the appeal was dismissed on 20-11-1970. On 11-9-1971, opp. party No. 1 moved the Revenue Officer to deposit the compensation amount alleging that he had sent the money to the petitioner by money order, but the petitioner refused to accept the same. The Revenue Officer directed that the amount be kept in as revenue deposit by order dated 20-10-1971, obviously not being aware of the earlier order dated 28-7-1970. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same filed an application purporting to exercise jurisdiction u/s 60 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. That application was allowed and the Revenue Officer rectified his own mistake on coming to the conclusion that the period of one year from the date of the order passed u/s 4(7) of the Act having expired, the order had operated upon and the land must stand reverted to the landlord. The said order of the Revenue Officer has been annexed as Annexure-3. Opp. party No. 1 carried an appeal to the Sub-Divisional Officer who by his order under Annexure-4 dismissed the appeal. Thereafter opp. party No. 1 preferred a revision which was registered as OLR. Revision No. 19 of 1975. The Addl. The said order of the Revenue Officer has been annexed as Annexure-3. Opp. party No. 1 carried an appeal to the Sub-Divisional Officer who by his order under Annexure-4 dismissed the appeal. Thereafter opp. party No. 1 preferred a revision which was registered as OLR. Revision No. 19 of 1975. The Addl. District Magistrate came to the conclusion that the period of one year as contained in the order dated 28-7-1970 must be computed from the date of finlisation of the appeal and, therefore, the offer made by opp. party No. 1 on 11-9-1971 and accepted by the Revenue Officer on 20-10-1971 must be held to be within time. He further held that the Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction to review his earlier order dated 20-10-1971 and ultimately allowed the appeal. The order of the Additional District Magistrate is annexed as Annexure-5. Against the said order under Annexure-5, the petitioner filed a revision before the Land Reforms Commissioner to refer the matter to the Member, Board of Revenue, obviously under Sub-section (2) of Section 59 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. The Land Reforms Commissioner having dismissed the same as per Annexure-6 by order dated 4-2-1986, the petitioner has approached this Court. In dismissing the revision, the Land Reforms Commissioner has held that The order of the Addl. District Magistrate was fully justified and there is no cause or doubt for making a reference to the Board of Revenue. 3. Mr. Patra appearing for the petitioner contends that the order of the Revenue Officer dated 28-7-1970 having clearly indicated that the amount of compensation would be deposited within one year from the date of the order failing which the land would revert back to the landlord and the said deposit not having been made within the stipulated 'period of one year, the Revenue Officer had absolutely no jurisdiction to permit the deposit to be made on 20th of October, 1971, and, therefore, he was fully justified in correcting the error made on 20th of October, 1971 by his latter order as an error in course of the proceeding had occurred. The revisional authority as well as the Land Reforms Commissioner grossly erred in law in coming to the conclusion that the order of one year has to be computed from the finalisation of the appeal and also erred in law in coming to the conclusion that the Revenue Officer had no right to review his earlier order dated 20th of October, 1971. The learned counsel for opp party No. 1, on the other hand, relying upon Section 61 of the Oriss Land Reforms Act, tried to support the conclusion of the learned Addl. District Magistrate as well as that of the Land Reforms Commissioner and further urged that review being a creature of the statute, the same has to be exercised within the parameter provided for in the statute and, therefore, it was wholly incompetent for the Revenue Officer to review his earlier order dated 20th of October, 1971, and on that score, the revisional authority as well as the Land Reforms Commissioner was justified in annulling the subsequent order of the Revenue Officer as well as that of the Sub-Divisional Officer who had heard the appeal. 4. In view of the rival submissions made at the Bar, the first question that arises for our determination is whether, the period of one year contemplated in the order of the Revenue Officer dated 28th of July, 1970, has to be computed from the date of the order itself or from the date of the appellate order. The order of the Revenue Officer is clear, categorical and unambiguous and does not entertain any doubt about the same. Pendency or an appeal against the same without the order being stayed does not keep the order in abeyance In that view of the matter, there can hardly be any rationale in the conclusion of the revisional authority as well as that of the Land Reforms Commissioner that the period of one year contained in the order of the Revenue Officer dated 28-7-1970 would be com-puted from the finalisation of the appeal. We also do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for opp. party No. 1 that in view of Section 61 of the Act, the period has to be computed from the date of the appellate order. We also do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for opp. party No. 1 that in view of Section 61 of the Act, the period has to be computed from the date of the appellate order. Section 61 of the Act merely states that all orders passed under the Act would be subject to the orders passed in appeal or revision, as the case may be, and shall not be called in question in any Court of law. That provision has nothing to do while interpreting the question whether the period of one year contained in the order of the Revenue Officer dated 28-7-1970 has to be computed from the date of the order or from the date of the appellate order. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we have no doubt in our mind that the said period of one year has to be computed from the date of the original order itself, i.e. 28-7-1970. Admittedly the revisional authority as well as the Land Reforms Commissioner committed gross error of law in coming to the conclusion that the said period of one year will be computed from the date of the appellate order. The said conclusion, cannot, therefore, be sustained and must be rejected. 5. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the Revenue Officer having directed to keep the amount as revenue deposit by order dated 20-10-1971 could modify the same on an application being filed as per his order dated 25-9-1972. No doubt, Section 60 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act indicates that any authority under the Act could review his earlier order on the ground of any clerical mistake or error in course of any proceeding under the Act. The order dated 20-10-1971 must be referable to an order passed under the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, Even otherwise, when the order was passed not being aware of the time limit prescribed in the order dated 28-7-1970 and when the Revenue Officer came to the conclusion that an error in course of the proceeding has been committed by him which has caused serious injustice to the petitioner, he was well within his jurisdiction to rectify that mistake and correct the error committed by him. In that view of the matter, we are also of the considered opinion that the revisional authority as well as the Land Reforms Commissioner committed error in holding that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction to rectify the mistake committed by him. Even the very decision cited by the learned counsel for opp. party No. 1 in the case of Naguni Guru v. Krushna Gochhi and supports our conclusion. It has been clearly held in the aforesaid case that where the Court finds that on account of an error committed by the Court itself one of the litigants before it suffered injury, then it comes under the clause "error in course of the proceeding". The aforesaid dictum would fully apply to the order passed on 20-10-1971 by the Revenue Officer and accordingly he was fully justified in correcting the said order and rectifying his own mistake. In the premises, as aforesaid, the conclusion of the revisional authority as well as that of the Land Reforms Commissioner to the effect that the Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction to review is wholly unsustainable and must accordingly be set aside. 6. In the net result, therefore, the orders in Annexures 5 and 6 are hereby quashed and the order of the Revenue Officer dated 25-9-1972 as per Annexure 3 and the appellate order of the Sub-divisional Officer as per Annexure-4 are affirmed. This writ application is allowed, but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. S.K. Mohanty, J. 7. I agree. Final Result : Allowed