PARITOSH K. MUKHERJEE, J. This writ petition is listed for admission. How ever, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is being finally disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Rules of Court. 2. The impugned judgment and orders are in Hindi. Sri J. N. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken pains in translating them in English for the convenience of the Court. 3. The brief facts of the case are that proceedings was initiated against father of the petitioner, namely, late Chandra Pal Singh as far back as in 1976. In the aforesaid proceedings, an area of 4 Bigha, 17 Biswas comprising plot Nos. 21 and 651, in village Khataula Pargana Baghra, Tahsil and District Muzaffarnagar was declared surplus by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated March 25, 4. Thereupon, a partition suit was filed before Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Tahsil Sardhana, District Meerut for partition of the land, including the land comprising of plot Nos. 21 and 651 of village Khataula, under Section 176 of the U. P. Zammdan and Land Reforms Act. The aforesaid suit was decreed by judgment dated August 27, 1986. Thereafter, an application was moved by S/sri Dharmendra Pratap and Vikram Singh under Section 12-A (d), read with Section 13-A of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), before the Prescribed Authority, Sardhana. 5. The Prescribed Authority, by his order dated July 31, 1984, held that land of 4 Bigha and 17 Biswas situated in village Dasrathpur, belonging to late Uiandrapal Singh, father of the petitioner, was surplus. Appeal preferred against the aforesaid order as dismissed by District Judge on March 23, 1988 holding that the land declared as surplus can be changed in the view of provisions contained in Section 12-A of the Act as there had been a partition of land. 6. Aggrieved, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, by means of the present writ petition. 7. Sri J. N. Tewari, for the petitioner, Sri K. R. Sirohi, for the private respondents, and learned Standing Counsel representing State have put in their appearance. . 8. 6. Aggrieved, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, by means of the present writ petition. 7. Sri J. N. Tewari, for the petitioner, Sri K. R. Sirohi, for the private respondents, and learned Standing Counsel representing State have put in their appearance. . 8. At the outset, Sri Tewari referred the provisions of Section 5 (7) of the Act, which runs as under : " (7) In determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure holder, any partition of land made after the twenty fourth day of January, 1971 which but for the partition would have been declared surplus land under this Act shall be ignored and not taken into account: Provided that nothing in this Sub-Section shall apply to- (a) Omitted by U. P. Act No. 20 of 1976 w. e. f. 18. 10. 1975 (b) a partition of a holding made in a suit or a proceeding pending on the said date. Provided further that not with standing anything contained in the preceding proviso the Prescribed Authority, if it is of opinion that by collusion between the tenure holder and any other party to the partition, such other party has been giver, a share which he was not entitled to, or a large share than he was entitled to may ignore such partition. Explanation I: If suit is instituted after the said date for declaration that a partition of land has taken place on or before the said date, then such declaration shall be ignored and not taken into account and, it shall be deemed that no partition has taken place on or before the said date. Explanation II:. . . . . . . Explanation II:. . . . . . . Thereafter, Sri Tewari referred the provisions of Section 12-A, which runs as under:- "12-A. In determining the surplus land under Section 11 or Section 12, the Prescribed Authority shall, as far as possible, accept the choice indicated by the tenure holder to the plot or plots which he and other members of his family, if any, would like to retain as part of the ceiling area applicable to him or them under the provisions of this Act, whether indicated by him in his statement under Section 9 or in any subsequent proceedings:- Provided that: (a) the Prescribed Authority shall have regard to the compactness of the land to be included in the ceiling area applicable to the tenure holder. (b) Where the tenure holders wife holds any land which is aggregated with the land held by the tenure holder for purposes of determination to the ceiling area, and his wife has not con sented to the choice indicated by the tenure holder as to the plot or plots to be retained as part of the ceiling area applicable to them, then the Prescribed Authority shall, as far as possible, declared the surplus land in such manner that the area taken out of the land held by the tenure holders wife bears to the total surplus area the same proportion as the area originally held by her beer to the total land held by the family; (d) Where any person holds land in excess of the ceiling area including land which is the subject matter of any transfer or partition referred to in sub-section (6) or sub-section (7) of Sec tion 5, the surplus land determined shall as far as possible, be land other than land which is the subject of such transfer or partition, and if the surplus land includes any land which is the subject of such transfer or partition, the transfer or partition shall, in so far as it relates to the land in cluded, in the surplus land, be deemed to be and always to have been void and- (i) it shall be open to the transferee to claim refund of the proportionate amount of con sideration, if any advanced by him to the transferor, and such amount shall be charged on the amount payable to the transferor under Section 17 and also on any land retrained by the trans feror within the ceiling area, which shall be liable to be sold in satisfaction of the charge, not withstanding anything contained in Section 153 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. (ii) any party to the partition (other than the tenure holder in respect of whom the surplus land has been determined) whose land is included in surplus land of the said tenure holder shall be entitled to have the partition reopened. " Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the provision of aforesaid clause (d) of Section 12-A of the Act. " Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the provision of aforesaid clause (d) of Section 12-A of the Act. He next contended that as there is no express power of review, given to the Prescribed authority by Legislature, the Prescribed Authority was incompetent to reopen the finding of earlier Prescribed Authority. Thus, by entertaining the application dated January 3i, 1981 moved by S/sri Dharniendra Pratap Singh and Vikram Singh, which was purported to be filed under Section 12-A (d) of the Act, the Prescribed Authority committed a manifest error of law. In support of his aforesaid contention the learned counsel for the petitioner placed his reliance in Patel Narshi Thakershi and others v. Pradyumanshinghiji Arjunshinghji AIR 1972 SC 1273 . In the aforesaid case, a Bench of Apex Court, consisting of Honble Mr. Justice J. C. Shah, Honble Mr. Justice K. S. Hegde and Honble Mr. Justice A. N. Grover had held that the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by Law, either specifically, or, by necessary im plication. 9. There is force in the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Apart from Patel Narshi Thakarshis case (Supra), it would be apposite to refer another decision of Calcutta High Court on the point. In Satyanarayan Banerjee and others v. Charge Officer Birbhum and others (AIR 1975 Calcutta- 43), Honble Sri Anil Kumr Sen, J. , (as his Lordship then was) and later on became Chief Justice of that Court, held that successor Assistant Settlement Officer having concurrent jurisdiction has no authority to take different view and reopen the proceeding for review. This was a case where an Assistant Settlement Officer had decided the character of the endownment by going into evidence and con struing the deed of endownment and found that the endownment was absolute, and, had directed the record to be corrected accordingly. However, the successor Assistant Settlement Officer respond the proceedings by a subsequent order. The ratio laid down in Indira Devi v. State (AIR 1967 Calcutta-469) was followed in the aforementioned case. 10. Sri J. N. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner, then next sub mitted, that in view of sub-section (7) of Section 5 of the Act, the Prescribed Authority should have ignored the partition, which has been admittedly passed in 1976, after the appointed date, i. e. January 24, 1971. 10. Sri J. N. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner, then next sub mitted, that in view of sub-section (7) of Section 5 of the Act, the Prescribed Authority should have ignored the partition, which has been admittedly passed in 1976, after the appointed date, i. e. January 24, 1971. In this connection, the learned counsel also referred to ihe provisions of Section 12-A (d) of the act, which have been quoted in the-body of this judgment, and submitted that the surplus land should have been determined, as far as possible, as the land other than land which is the subject of such transfer or partition, and if the surplus" land includes any land which is the subject of such transfer or partition, the transfer or partition should have been deemed to be void. 11. On the other hand, Sri Sirohi, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents vehementaly attacked the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. According to him, the predecessor-in-interest of petitioner did not submit before the Prescribed Authority, in earlier proceed ing in 1976, that he was tenure holder in respect of l/3rd share and the remain ing 2/3 share was belonging to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. He next contended that had the said fact been brought to the notice of Prescribed Authority, the Prescribed Authority would have declared the entire land as surplus. 12. On being enquired by this court as to what should be the reply of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 about the provisions of sub- section (7) of Section 5 of the Act, of course, Sri Sirohi could not satisfy this court and could not give any satisfactory reply to the other aspect of the case also, that is, with regard to fianhty being reached in respect of earlier order of the Prescribed Authority passed on March 25, 1976. k 13. However, Sri Sirohi tried his level best to defend respondent Nos 2 and 3 by placing various citations. He prominently relied upon a decision of Smt Ram Kali v. State of U. P. and others (Allahabad Law Journal 1982, page 134) wherein, it has been held that tenure holder could revise his choice till his rights stood extinguished under Section 14 of the Act. He prominently relied upon a decision of Smt Ram Kali v. State of U. P. and others (Allahabad Law Journal 1982, page 134) wherein, it has been held that tenure holder could revise his choice till his rights stood extinguished under Section 14 of the Act. In the given case, the tenure holder gave in a revised choice, before any steps were taken, for dispossession and her right to so send in a revised choice, was upheld. 14. In the case IP hand, admittedly there is no dispute regarding proposi tion of arising of provisions of Section 14 of the Act to exercise revised choice before possession is taken by State, Thus, the facts of the aforesaid case are dis tinguishable and are not applicable, in any manner, the facts present case The facts of the present case are somewhat, different. Here, application for review has been entertained by a subsequent Prescribed Authority purported to be under Section 12-A (d) of the Act, read with Section 13-A. 15. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State adopted the argu ment advanced by Sri Sirohi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and submitted that the impugned orders are just and proper and do not call for any interference in writ jurisdiction. . 16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties this Court is of the view that the Act does not contain any specific power of review by the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority is absolutely incompetent to review and reopen the finding recorded by its predecessor in any manner, whatsoever, as has been held by Honble Supreme Court in Patei Narshi Thakershis case (supra ). 17. Further, even if is assumed that a Tribunal or Court cannot function without the power of review, even then such power of review and/or reopening can only be exercised by superior authority. In the present case, the superior authority was Additional Commissioner or the Board of Revenue, as the case may be. Thus, the Prescribed Authority did not act within his jurisdiction in entertaining the aforesaid application and reopening the matter afresh. 18. In this connection, it would not be out of place to mention that there are provisions for reopening of the Income Tax Assessment made by an Income Tax Officer to the prejudice of Revenue. In the Indian Income lax Act, 192. 18. In this connection, it would not be out of place to mention that there are provisions for reopening of the Income Tax Assessment made by an Income Tax Officer to the prejudice of Revenue. In the Indian Income lax Act, 192. Sec tion 33-B empowered the Commissioner of Income Tax to reopen the finding of an Income Tax Officer on the basis of proposal for reopening. The corresponding Section in the Income Tax Act, 1961 is Section 263. However, in the present case, the Prescribed Authority has usurped the power of superior authority by reviewing/reopening the matter, which was once decided by another Prescribed Authority, having concurrent and coordinate jurisdiction. 19. Lastly, Sri Sirohi drew my attention to a case law in Ibrahim and another v. State of U. P. and others (1986 R. D. 69 ). In the aforesaid case, Honble B. L. Yadav, j. (as His Lordship then was,) was of the view that term as far as possible appearing in Section 12-A (d) means that the Ceiling Authorities-must record a finding that it was not possible to obtain other land of the tenure holder to be declared surplus other than the land which was sold or was the subject matter of partition. With due respect, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. 20. In view of what has been discussed in the foregoing paragraph, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 21. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 31. 7. 1984 and 23. 3. 1988/passed by respondent Nos. 4 and 1, and annexure Nos. 2 and 3 respectively, are hereby quashed. The respondents and each one of them are restrained to interfere, in any manner, with the possession of the petitioner over the disputed land. Petition allowed .