JUDGMENT : G.B. Pattnaik, J. - The orders passed by the revenue authorities in relation to a ceiling surplus proceeding as per Annexures-2, 3 and 4 are being challenged in this writ application, inter alia, on the ground that the Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction to re-open the determination of ceiling already made on the ground of error in course of the proceeding, inasmuch as the earlier determination made was final and could not have been re-opened. 2. In a ceiling surplus proceeding that had been initiated against the petitioner, the Revenue Officer came to the conclusion vide his order dated 22-4-1986 that the land in question could be classified as Class-ll as the village is under the ayacut area of Karanjkot Minor Irrigation Project and the source of water can feed the village during the rains only. On the basis of the aforesaid conclusion, he found that the petitioner does not possess land in excess of the ceiling area. The said order has been annexed as Annexure-1. While scrutinising the payments of water rate in respect of the lands in the village, the Revenue Officer came to learn that a second crop has been raised during 1985.1986, 1987 and 1988 in respect of some plots and the land in question is capable of having two crops and, therefore, the earlier classification made, was incorrect. Accordingly, he issued notice to the petitioner and finally after hearing the petitioner and on holding further enquiry came to hold that the classification earlier made was on an incorrect assumption and if the correct classification is taken into consideration, the land would be class-l and thereby determined ceiling surplus in the hands of the ceiling surplus holder. The order of the Revenue Officer has been annexed as Annexure-2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same preferred an appeal. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on a finding that the error having crept in, in course of the proceeding, the Revanue Officer had the power to review the same. The appellate order has been annexed as Annexure-3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order preferred a revision and the revision having been dismissed, the present writ application has been filed. 3. Mr. The appellate order has been annexed as Annexure-3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order preferred a revision and the revision having been dismissed, the present writ application has been filed. 3. Mr. D. P. Sahoo appearing fort the petitioner agrees with vehemence that the power of review contained in Sub-section (1) Section 60 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act cannot tantamount to a power of an appellate authority and, therefore, a decision already made which has become final could not be reviewed on merits. According to him the conclusion of the Revenue Officer on 22-4-1986 to the effect that the land can be classified as Class-ll cannot be re-opened. 4. The correctness of the aforesaid submission depends upon the extent of power conferred upon the Revenue Officer under Sub-section (1) of Section 60. The provision of Sub-section (1) of Section 60 is extracted herein below in extenso ; "Any order passed under this Act may after notice to all persons interested, be reviewed by the officer who made the order or his successor in office on the ground of any clerical mistake or error in course of any proceeding under this Act." A hare perusal of the aforesaid provision would indicate that the person who passes the order or his successor-in-office can review the earlier order after noticing all persons interested on the ground of any clerical mistake or error in course of any proceeding under the Act. The expression "error in course of any proceeding" under the Act would obviously include within its sweep an apparent error on a misconstruction of the provisions of a statute committed by the very Officer or his predecessor-in-interest. If the order of the Revenue Officer dated 22 4-1986 is examined from the aforesaid stand-point, there cannot be any manner of doubt that the said Revenue Officer committed gross error in classifying the land to be class-II merely because the village is under the ayacut area of a minor irrigation project and that the source of water can feed the village during the rains only. The definition of Class-l land u/s 2 (5-a) means- "Irrigated land in which two or more crops (i) were in any year within a period of three years before the commencement of the Orissa Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1973 (President's Act 17 of 1973) grown or (ii) can be grown in a year." "Irrigated land has been defined in Section 2 (13) to mean "...land which is assured of irrigation from an irrigation project constructed or maintained or improved or controlled by the Central Government or the State Government or by a body corporate established under any law for the time being in force and includes land which is assured of irrigation from any private source by means of lift irrigation from any perennial water source operated by diesel or electric power, but does not include continually water-logged lands or sand-cast lands." There is no dispute that the land in question is irrigated land since it is assured of irrigation from a minor irrigation project. But the question whether it would be a Class-l land or Class-II land would depend upon the question whether two or more crops were grown in any year within a period of three years before the commencement of the Orissa Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1973, or can be grown in a year. Obviously, the Revenue Officer while passing the order on 22-4-1986 had not borne in mind the aforesaid provision of law in coming to the conclusion that the land can be classified as Class-ll and when this matter was noticed by the said Revenue Officer, he decided to re-open the matter after issuing notice to the petitioner. In our considered opinion, it would be well within his power on being satisfied that, the earlier conclusion is based upon totally overlooking the provisions of the Act. After issuing notice, the Revenue Officer has re-considered the matter and on coming to a conclusion that in fact two crops had been grown on different parts of the land in two different years as well as the finding that two crops can be grown, has held the land to be a Class-I land. There is no error in the aforesaid conclusion arrived at by the Revenue Officer. The said conclusion has been upheld by the appellate authority and reaffirmed by the revisional authority. There is no error in the aforesaid conclusion arrived at by the Revenue Officer. The said conclusion has been upheld by the appellate authority and reaffirmed by the revisional authority. In our considered opinion, the Revenue Officer was fully within his jurisdiction u/s 60(1) of the Act to exercise the power of review and there has been no illegality or irregularity in exercise of that power. We accordingly decline to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities. 5. The writ application accordingly fails and is dismissed. The interim order stands vacated. There will be no order as to costs. R.K. Patra, J. 6. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed