Judgment R. M. Prasad, J. 1. This writ application is directed against the order dated 29-7-1983 of the Additional Collector of Saharsa (respondent No.1)passed in Land Restoration Appeal No.58/79-80/14 of 1983-84 contained in annexures-6, whereby and whereunder he allowed the appeal filed by respondent no.3 against the order dated 19-1-1980 passed by the Land Restoration Offieer, birpur in Suppl. Land Restoration No.12/64-65/36/65-66 under the provisions of the Kosi Area (Restoration of Lands to Raiyats) Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the act) restoring the lands in question in favour of the petitioner. 2. In short the relevant facts are, that plot Nos.2809, 2860 and 2898, the total area of which is 3 bighas 9 kathas and 4 dhurs in village Raghopur in the district of Saharsa recorded in the name of one Rabi Harijan was auctioned in execution proceeding of a rent suit on 10-4-1939. The father of respondent No.3 late Tofani Yadav was the auction-purchaser in respect of plot nos.2860 and 2809 comprising an area 2 bighas 7 dhurs, Jhabar Yadav in respect of plot No.2862 comprising an area 11 kathas 16 dhurs and Binda nand Jha and Sadanand Jha in respect of plot No.2898 comprising an area 17 kathas 10 dhurs. In the year 1954 father of the petitioner Lal Mohammad claiming that he was the real owner and rabi Harijan was a mere name lender (Benamidar) filed case No.207/1953-54 under Sec.3 of the Act for restoration of the above-mentioned four plots impleading Toofani Yadav, Bindanand jha and Sadanand Jha as opposite parties in the said proceeding. The said petition for restoration was rejected by the Land Restoration Officer, Supaul on 27-2-1963. The father of the petitioner, preferred an appeal against the said order, in which the said order was set aside and the case was remitted back to the Land Restoration Officer for fresh consideration. 3. Later, Lal Mohammad died and in his place the petitioner was substituted by an order dated 25-3-1965 by the Land Restoration Officer in the land Restoration case. It appears that on remand the case was registered as case No.12 of 1964-65/36 of 1965-66. 3. Later, Lal Mohammad died and in his place the petitioner was substituted by an order dated 25-3-1965 by the Land Restoration Officer in the land Restoration case. It appears that on remand the case was registered as case No.12 of 1964-65/36 of 1965-66. The said case was contested by Toofani yadav, father of respondent No.3 and others and after having chequered history was finally heard by the Land Restoration Officer, Birpur (respondent no.2), who allowed the case vide order dated 25-9-1965 and the petitioner was required to submit necessary challan of the deposit of amount for restoration of the lands in question. No time was fixed by the respondent No.2 for deposit of the amount, nor there was any direction that in the event of non-deposit the case will stand rejected or dismissed. Toofani Yadav filed Land restoration Appeal No.2/1966-67 which after being transferred to Additional Collector, saharsa was re-numbered as 19 of 65-66/2 of 67. The said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 21-8-70, a true copy thereof has been annexed as annexure-1 to the writ petition. 4. Toofani Yadav did not assail the validity of the said order and according to the petitioner, the order dated 25-9-65 passed by the Land Restoration Officer, Saharsa as well as the appellate order dated 21-8-70 passed by respondent No.1 contained in annexure 2 became final. On 25-10-75 the petitioner deposited money through 3 challans being number 10, 11 and 12 in Sub-Treasury, supaul in the names of toofani Yadav, Jhabar Yadav and Bindanand yadav and Sadanand Yadav. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application dated 7-11-79 before the Land restoration Officer, Birpur for issuing a writ for delivery of possession, which was allowed by respondent No.2 vide order dated 26-11-79 contained in annexure-3, who directed issuance of delivery of possession after the deposit of necessary costs being process fee of rs.35/- indicated in the order. Pursuant to the said order the delivery of possession was given to the petitioner on 30-11-79. However, thereafter on 12-12-1979, the son of Toofani Yadav, namely, respondent No.3 filed an application" under Sec.10 of the Act for recovery of possession before respondent No.2, a copy whereof has been annexed as annexure-4. Pursuant to the said order the delivery of possession was given to the petitioner on 30-11-79. However, thereafter on 12-12-1979, the son of Toofani Yadav, namely, respondent No.3 filed an application" under Sec.10 of the Act for recovery of possession before respondent No.2, a copy whereof has been annexed as annexure-4. The said petition was mainly filed on the ground that Toofani Yadav had died long time back and that the compensation amount had not been deposited within five years of the date of disposal of the appeal. The said petition was rejected by respondent No.2 vide order dated 19-1- 80 contained in annexure-5 chiefly on the ground that he had no power to review or recall the earlier order passed in the above case and further, he held that there was no conditional order of the Land Restoration Officer directing the petitioner to deposit the compensation money within a fixed time, failing which he had to loose the benefit of the order. Respondent No.3 moved in appeal against the said order which was registered as Land Restoration Appeal No.58 of 1979-80/14 of 1983-84 before Addl. Collector Saharsa (respondent No.1 ). The said appeal was allowed by respondent No.1 vide impugned order contained in annexure-6 and the aforementioned order passed by the Land Restoration Officer was held to be illegal and was set aside on the ground that (i) the delivery of possession given against a dead person is not effective and valid in the eye of law inasmuch as, the respondents should have substituted the legal heir (s) of toofani Yadav, (ii) Under Sec.7 (i) (e) the deposit is to be made within a period not exceeding five years and that having not been adhered to, the benefit of the order of restoration of land lost its force; (iii) The application dated 7-11-79 (annexure-2) filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Land Restoration officer has to be taken as fresh application under Sec.3 and as successive application under Sec.3 are not permissible under the Act, the said application was not maintainable. 5. It is contended by Mr. 5. It is contended by Mr. Ravi ranjan, learned Advocate for the petitioner that the impugned order is wholly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, there being no power of review in the statute, the appellate Court, whose power is co-existence with that of original court did not have the power to review earlier orders including the orders in regard to delivery of possession. It was also submitted that no appeal was maintainable against the order rejecting the prayer of respondent No.3 for recall as it was not an order passed under the Act. 6. On merit, the learned Counsel submitted that all the three reasons given by the learned Addl. Collector are wholly misconceived. No time was fixed vide order dated 25-8-65 or even by the Addl. Collector white dismissing the appeal of Tbofani Yadav against the said order, which became final. As such, it was not open for respondent no.3 to raise any grievance in regard. (sic) by the petitioner. It was also submitted that the provisions contained in Sec.7 (i) (c) of the Act are not mandatory, rather the same is directory, specially in view of the fact that there is no penal clause mentioned in the statute itself on account of late deposit of the compensation money. In this connection, the learned Counsel also submitted that the case of the petitioner is not covered by 5 years rider in view of the provision contained in clause (d) of Sec.7 of the Act, which is the provision in regard to payment of lump-sum, inasmuch as in case of lump-sum payment no time is fixed as the person can get possession over the land only after the payment is made and till then the person always in possession would be utilising the usufruct. Thus, according to the learned Counsel, no injury is caused to the landholder as he continues in possession of this land until delivery of possession is effected. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the addl. Collector, wrongly applied the principle of causes omissus and supplemented something what is not there in the provisions. 7. Thus, according to the learned Counsel, no injury is caused to the landholder as he continues in possession of this land until delivery of possession is effected. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the addl. Collector, wrongly applied the principle of causes omissus and supplemented something what is not there in the provisions. 7. Lastly, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the application dated 7-11-79 was not a successive application at all, rather it was merely an application for issuance of delivery of possession and for the enforcement of the order dated 25-8-65 passed by the predecessor of respondent No.2. According to the learned counsel, it is true that the said petition was purported to have been filed under sec.3, but it was merely wrong levelled on account of which the petitioner cannot be denied the relief for which he was/is entitled. As regards the petition filed on behalf of respondent No.3 claiming to be under Section. (sic)was admitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner though in fact, the said petition was not under Sec.10 and neither he could maintain such a petition, because his father who in possession of the land before the petitioner under Sec. (sic) filed on the notice given to him contested the matter. The learned Counsel submitted that the Act is a self-contained Act and there is no provision for substitution in the Act. According to him, in any case it is not the case of respondent No.3 that he was not in jointness with his father. Thus, according to the learned Counsel, the order passed against his father is binding on him as well and the same was rightly given effect to by delivering the possession of the land in question to the petitioner. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Mihir kumar Jha, learned Counsel lor respondent No.3 submitted that under section 4 of the Act, the Collector is required to give notice of the proceeding initiated under Sec.3 to the raiyat, the landlord and any other person interested in the holding or portion thereof for filing objection, if any, on a date fixed in the notice. He submitted as the father of respondent No.3 had died, his heirs should have been substituted and given notice about subsequent petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.3. He submitted as the father of respondent No.3 had died, his heirs should have been substituted and given notice about subsequent petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.3. This having not been done vitiates the entire action in regard to delivery of possession, inasmuch as the said action being violalive of Sec.4 as also the principle of natural justice is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. 9. The learned Counsel further submitted that the petition filed by respondent No.3 was under Sec.10 of the Act, which provides for making an application objection to delivery of possession or for reco\ery of possession, which is a stage subsequent to delivery of possession, as the delivery of possession had been given in the present case, the petition filed by respondent No.3 under Sec.10 was maintainable. It was also submitted by him that there is no question of review involved in the present case. However, according to thim there is power of review given in the Statute itself under sub-Sections 2 and 3 of Sec.10 of the act. In support of this he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Nair Service Society ltd. V/s. K. C. Allexender and Others, reported in AIR 1963 S. C.1165, paras 10 to 12. It was also submitted by him that the petitioner lost the benefit of the order of restoration as the amount was not deposited by him within the prescribed time. 10. Mr. Jha, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 also placed reliance in the decision of the supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sushila Devi V/s. Ramnandan Prasad reported in A. I. R.1976 S. C.176 in support of his argument that the amount if not paid within the prescribed period, the raiyat lose benefit of order of restoration. The Supreme Court in that case was dealing with an order allowing payment in three annual instalments to the raiyat with clear stipulation that if he failed to pay the first instalment within the period mentioned therein, he would lose the benefit of order of restoration and accordingly, held that the said order was not interlocutory order, but final order and therefore, the circle Officer or any other officer discharging the function of the Collector under the Act had no power to grant extension of time on the expiry of the period fixed for payment of the first instalment. But in the instant case the facts are quite different. In fact, there was no such conditional order passed for restoration of the land in question, nor the order for payment of compensation in instalment was made in the present case. As such, the said decision of the apex Court is of no avail to the learned Counself for the respondent No.3. 11. It is true that the petitioner did not deposit the compensation money within five years, It is also true that the petitioner filed petition seeking delivery of possession by levelling it to be one under Sec.3 and at the time of delivery of possession the father of respondent No.3 had died. But the real question for consideration is as to whether after the "dismissal of the appeal of Toofani Yadav by the Addl. Collector, Saharsa on 21-8-70 vide order contained in annexure-1 the order dated 29-9-65 passed by the Land Restoration Officer, Saharsa became final and consequently the delivery of possession was also effected in favour of the petitioner on 30-11-79, the respondent No.3 could maintain a petition purporting to be under Sec.10 of the Act for revovery of possession and the respondent No.1 was justified to entertain the said petition and review the order of his predecessor by the impugned order. The other question which needs consideration is as to whether clause (e) of sub-section (i) of section 7 of the Act, which empowers the Collector to determine the question for deposit of the amount in instalment and fixes 5 years as the limit for making such deposit by the raiyat, who desires to deposit or pay the amount in instalments for restoration of the land having regard to the means and circumstances of the raiyat is mandatory and whether the present case in which the petitioner paid the amount in lump sum shall be governed by the aforesaid provisions or by the provisions contained in Clause (d) of sub-section (1)of Sec.7. 12. I wish to deal with the aforementioned second question first. 12. I wish to deal with the aforementioned second question first. Sub-section 1 of Sec.7 reads as follows : (1) If the proceedings are not dropped under sub-section (2) of Sec.5, the Collector shall- (a) determine the land which is liable to be restored to the raiyat under the provisions of this Act ; (b) determine the amount which shall be payable by the raiyat for the restoration to him of such land; (c) specify the person to whom the, amount determined under clause (b) shall be payable : provided that where the Collector is of opinion that more than one persons are entitled to the amount determined he shall also apportion the amount which shall be payable by the raiyat to such person ; (d) ascertain whether raiyat desires to deposit the amount mentioned in clause (b)in one lump sum or in instalments; (e) if the raiyat desires to deposit or pay the said amount in instalments, determine, having regard to the means and cir-constances of the raiyat, the number and amount of such instalments which shall be payable within a period not exceeding five years; and (f) order that the raiyat shall be put in possession of the land,- (i) if the amount determined under clause (c) is payable in one lump sum, as soon as possible after the raiyat has deposited with the Collector such lump sum; and (ii) if the said amount is payable in instalments as soon as possible after the raiyat has deposited with the Collector the amount of the first instalment. 13. Clause (d) provides for ascertaining whether the raiyat desires to deposit the amount mentioned in clause (b) in one lump sum or in instalments. In clause (b) the Collector is empowered to determine the amount which shall be payable by the raiyat for the restoration to him all such lands. Clause (e) gives the raiyat remedy to file an application for depositing the said amount in instalment about which the Collector having regard to the means and circumstances of the raiyat has been empowered to determine the number and amount of such instalments which shall be payable within the period not exceeding 5 years. Clause (e) gives the raiyat remedy to file an application for depositing the said amount in instalment about which the Collector having regard to the means and circumstances of the raiyat has been empowered to determine the number and amount of such instalments which shall be payable within the period not exceeding 5 years. In case the amount determined in payable in one lump sum the Collector under clause (f) has to pass order that the raiyat shall be in possession of such land after deposit of the said amount with him in lump sum as soon as possible, but under sub-clause (ii) of clause (f) if the amount is payable in instalment the raiyat has to be put in possession of the land as soon as possible after he deposited the amount of first instalment with the Collector. 14. From the perusal of the aforementioned provisions in my opinion, the limitation of five years for payment of the entire amount payable by the raiyat for the restoration of the land is mandatory as is also evident from the fact that in case the said provision is held to be directory the raiyat who is restored of the possession of the land, as soon as he deposits the first instalment may continue to remain in possession and utilise the usufruct for indefinite period even without depositing the amount of remaining instalments which in my opinion cannot be the intention of the legislation. This is further clear from the provisions contained in clause (d) read with sub-clause (i)of clause (d) which deals with the case whether the raiyat desires no deposit the amount in one lump sum and for which there is a limitation prescribed, evidently because the raiyat is put in possession of the land as soon as possible only after the deposits with the Collector such lump sum amount. It is true that clause (d) deals with the power of the collector to ascertain whether the raiyat desires to deposit the amount mantioned in clause (b) in one lump-sum or in instalments, but in the case where raiyat desires to deposit the amount in instalments minimum period of 5 years has been fixed under clause (e) for deposit of the entire amount, whereas in the case where the raiyat desires to deposit in lump sum no such limitation is prescribed, obviously because his possession can be restored only after such deposit is made. 15. It is well-known that the Court should not inject a word in the rule in the disguise of interpretation which would result in absurdity or change from object of the rule. A reference in this "connection is invited to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Director-General Telecommunication and another V/s. T. N. Peethambaram, reported in AIR 1987 SC 162 . 16. In the present case, it is true that the order for restoration of the land to the petitioner on making payment of compensation to opposite parties become final by the dismissal of appeal preferred by Toofani Yadav on 21-9-70 and the amount determined by the Collector as compensation was deposited by him vide three different challans on 25-10-75, i. e. after the expiry of 5 years, but since the payment was made in lump-sum, in my opinion the rider of 5 years, as provided under clause (e) to sub-section 1 of Sec.7 shall not come in his way to gel the possession of the land restored. Thus, there was no illegality in effecting the delivery of possession to the petitioner on 30th November, 79 on account of the above. 17. Admittedly, the petition purporting to be under Sec.10 was filed by respondent No.3 after the delivery of possession was effected in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the said petition can at best be said to be under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10. It is not doubt that the said petition was filed by respondent No.3 within a month of delivery of possession, which was effected on 30th November, 79. Thus, the said petition can at best be said to be under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10. It is not doubt that the said petition was filed by respondent No.3 within a month of delivery of possession, which was effected on 30th November, 79. But whether such a petition was maintainable at the instance of respondent no.3 when his father or he never moved any higher court against the aforementioned final order of the Land restoration Officer, which was affirmed in appeal by the Collector on 21-8-70. 18. In the instant case the said order of the Land Restoration Officer for delivery of possession was passed after due notice to the person, namely, father of respondent No.3, who was then in possession of the land by virtue of the alleged purchase made by him in course of auction sale in execution proceeding of a rent suit. It is useful to quote Sec.10 (1) of the Act hereinafter : "if the land mentioned in an order under clause (f) of sub- section (1) of section 7 or any portion thereof was before the date of the commencement of the proceedings under Sec.3, in possession of any person who had no notice of the proceeding in which the order for delivery of possession was passed, such person may make an applications to the Collector- (a) in case possession of the land has not been delivered under sub-section (3) of section 7 at any time after the passing of the order under clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 7, objecting to the delivery of possession of such land to the raiyat; (b) In case possession of the land has been delivered under sub-section (3) of Sec.7, within one month from the date on which person is dispossessed, complaining of such dispossession. 19. Under the said provision any person, who had no notice of the proceeding under Sec.3, in which the order of delivery of possession is passed, can make an application to the collector under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act objecting to delivery of possession of such land to the raiyat. In case possession of the land has not been delivered and in case possession of land has been delivered under sub-section (3) of Sec.7, then under clause (c) he can complain of such dispossession within one month thereafter. In case possession of the land has not been delivered and in case possession of land has been delivered under sub-section (3) of Sec.7, then under clause (c) he can complain of such dispossession within one month thereafter. The said provision does not conceive of giving any notice to a person at the stage of delivery of possession. Clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Sec.7 of the Act deals with the delivery of possession of such land to raiyat claiming restoration. Under the said provision also there is no requirement of giving notice at the stage of delivery of possession. Thus, in my opinion, the application under Sec.10 filed by respondent No.3 was not maintainable inasmuch as, he cannot complain of having ho notice of the proceeding when his father on notice contested the proceeding under Section 3 upto the appellate stage and allowed the order for restoration to become final. 20. Moreover, Mr. Jha, rightly submitted that the petition filed by respondent No.3 under Sec.10 was not a petition for review. As such, the reliance placed by him on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of nair Service Society Ltd. V/s. K. C. Alexander and others, reported in AIR 1968 S. C.1165, in my opinion, has no application to the facts of the present case inasmuch as, if at all power of review is prescribed there in the Statute itself, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3, then a petition for review of the original order ought to have been filed and not that a petition for recall of the order of delivery of possession was maintainable. Respondent No.3 filed the petition, a true copy whereof has been annexed as annexure-4 not for review of the original order but for recall of the order of delivery of possession on the ground that the petition for claim of delivery of possession was barred by limitation as the amount of compensation had not been deposited within the time not exceeding five years. 21. The Additional Collector, (respondent No.1) has committed error in holding that the delivery of possession against the dead person is not effective and valid in the eye of law. 21. The Additional Collector, (respondent No.1) has committed error in holding that the delivery of possession against the dead person is not effective and valid in the eye of law. The proceeding under the Act is not the one-under the Civil Procedure code, The requirement of notice to landlord and not other person interested in the holding is provided under section 4 of the Act is only at the stage of the proceeding under Sec.3 and once the said notice was given to the purchaser namely, Toofani Yadav, father of respondent No.3, the requirement of the provision stands satisfied and in such circumstances, none can raise objection to the delivery of possession or for recovery of possession under Sec.10. 22. The learned Additional Collector has also committed error in holding that the application for delivery of posession filed on behalf of the petitioner was a fresh application under section 3 and, consequently, that successive application under Sec.3 was not permissible under the Act. It is true that the said petition was purported to have been filed by the petitioner under section 2, but in fact, the prayer made in the said petition was for issuance of writ of delivery of possession in favour of the petitioner of the lands in question after the deposit of the compensation amount in lump-sum was made vide aforementioned challans in the terms of sub-clause (i) of clause (f) of sub- section (1) of Sec.7 of the Act. Thus, there was no question of making any successive application which, according to the learned Addl. Collector is not maintainable. I have already held that there is no limitation for making deposit of the amount in lump-sum. As such, the aforesaid petition for delivery of possession was rightly allowed by the land Restoration Officer and delivery of possession of the lands in question was rightly effected on 30-11 -79. 23. In the result, the writ application is allowed, the impugned order of the Additional Collector (respondent No.1) contained in Annexure-6 is quashed and consequently, the order of the Land Restoration Officer, Birpur is restored. However in the facts, and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.