ORDER M.P. Singh, J. - The only point involved in this case is whether the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has any power of review. The facts in brief are as follows. Respondent No. 3 Mata Saran filed an application under Section 5(1)(c) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for permission to sell the land. It was done so during the pendency of the proceedings for declaration of shares of the parties before the Consolidation Authority. 2. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation after hearing both the parties rejected the application on 22-12-1988. 3. Respondent No. 3 thereafter filed a review petition on 18-1-1989 which was allowed on 24-4-1989. The petitioner filed a revision against the said order but it was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The present writ petition has been filed against that order. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Sri B.B. Paul learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation had no power of review under the Act. The submission raised by the learned counsel has force inasmuch as there is no specific provision in the Act. 6. Sri Uma Kant learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3 has submitted that it was not actually a review application but a restoration application. I do not agree with him. The order dated 22- 12-1988 was passed on merit after hearing both the parties. The application to set aside this order cannot be said to be a restoration but is a review application. 7. He has relied upon a decision of this Court reported in 1985 R.D. 71-Paras Nath Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others. Reference was made to paras 9, 11 and 12 of that case. 8. In that case the court took the view that if an order has been passed without application of mind on the material evidence on record then the Consolidation authority can exercise the inherent power to correct that mistake. 9. But in the instant case the position is entirely different. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation has considered all the material on record while passing the order dated 22- 12-1988. There was full application of mind. Both the parties were heard at length. Thus the cases of Paras Nath Singh (supra) has no application. 10. 9. But in the instant case the position is entirely different. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation has considered all the material on record while passing the order dated 22- 12-1988. There was full application of mind. Both the parties were heard at length. Thus the cases of Paras Nath Singh (supra) has no application. 10. The aggrieved party could file a revision or appeal but the review petition was not maintainable. 11. Accordingly I am of the view that the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 24-4-1989 and that of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 20-9-1989 are wholly without jurisdiction and are quashed. 12. In result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. But there will be no order as to costs.