H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) ALL these writ petitions which have been filed, by State of Karnataka and the Assistant Commissioner, against the order of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and respondent No. 2 in all these writ petition is the same in which raises common questions of law to the effect whether the Assistant Commissioner could review and recall his order dated 27-4-1984, whereby the Assistant Commissioner granted the permission to respondent No. 2 to purchase the lands in dispute. Hence these petitions are being disposed of by one common order. ( 2 ) BY these writ petitions the petitioners have sought for issuance of writ of certiorari or issuance of any other appropriate writ or direction for quashing the order dated 13-2-1987 passed by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in appeals Nos. 270 to 273 of 1986 copy of which is Annexure-B to the writ petition. ( 3 ) THE facts of the case in brief are that respondent No. 2 had moved an application under Sec. 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act for grant of permission to transfer the land by way of sale in its favour. The land which respondent No. 2 intended and wished to purchase under the permission of the Asst. Commissioner did bear Sy. No. 106/ 1 measuring 3 acres 12 guntas, 106/ 1 measuring 3 acres, 107/3-E measuring 2 acres 9 guntas and 107/e measuring 3 acres situated in Chittapur village, Chittapur Taluk, Gulbarga District. The Assistant Commissioner vide order 27-4-1984 granted permission to the respondent No. 2 to purchase the said land from the land holders. Later on some mistake was realised and the Asst. Commissioner felt that permission was obtained by a person who was not an agriculturist and no permission could be granted entitling him to purchase the land and, issued notice to 2nd respondent why the order dated 27-4-1984 should not be recalled. The objections were filed by the 2nd respondent in reply to the notice and by order dated 31-3-1986 the Asst. Commissioner recalled his order dated 27-4-1984. Having felt aggrieved from the order of the Asst. Commissioner recalling his earlier order dated 27-4-1984 the 2nd respondent filed four appeals viz. , Appeal Nos. 270, 271, 272 and 273/86 before the Appellate Tribunal. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 taking the view that there was no power vested in the Asst. Having felt aggrieved from the order of the Asst. Commissioner recalling his earlier order dated 27-4-1984 the 2nd respondent filed four appeals viz. , Appeal Nos. 270, 271, 272 and 273/86 before the Appellate Tribunal. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 taking the view that there was no power vested in the Asst. Commissioner to recall the order dated 27-4-1984 and allowed the appeals filed by present respondent No. 2 vide its judgment and order dated 13-2-1987. Having felt aggrieved from the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, the State of Karnataka has filed these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Asst. Commissioner of Gulbarga District has also joined in the filing of the petition as petitioner No. 2. Notice of these petitions had been issued by this Court and it appears that the notice has been served on Respondent No. 1 and 2 both. No appearance have been put on behalf of Respondent No. 2 and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is the State Authority. But none appeared on behalf of State Tribunal. The disputes formerly is in between the petitioners and Respondent No. 2. The Tribunal has acted only as a judicial forum to decide the dispute which has been placed before it. ( 4 ) I have heard Sri H. H. Kaladagi, learned High Court Government Pleader. Learned Government advocate Sri H. H. Kaladagi submitted before me that the Appellate Tribunal committed an error of law apparent on the face of record in taking the view that there was no power vested in the Asst. Commissioner, Sedam to review its order. Learned Government counsel submitted that Asst. Commissioner is a revenue Court and there can be no dispute ordinarly it as a bare proposition of law that there is no power to review unless one is conferred expressly by certain provisions of law or the power could be read by necessary implication be vested in the authority. Learned Government counsel submitted that Asst. Commissioner is the Court in view of the provisions of Sec. 24 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and it has got inherent powers vested in it and legislature has recognised the vesting of inherent powers in the revenue Court as per Sec. 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act read with Sec. 24 thereof. Commissioner is the Court in view of the provisions of Sec. 24 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and it has got inherent powers vested in it and legislature has recognised the vesting of inherent powers in the revenue Court as per Sec. 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act read with Sec. 24 thereof. Learned Government counsel submitted that there is no specific provision confirming the power of review, but in view of the inherent power of the Court to pass such orders as are necessary in the interest of justice and to avoid the injury to the parties, the Asst. Commissioner as revenue Court had power to review the order, which in fact amounts to or result in or has tandency to result in the frustration the very objection and provisions of the Act. Learned Government counsel made a reference to some cases in support of his contention which I may deal hereinafter. Learned Government counsel further submitted that in view of the provisions under Sec. 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act read along with Sec. 79 (B) of the Act, the Asst. commissioner had been debarred from granting the permission to persons like the respondent No. 2 viz. , the Company or the factory or to persons who are not agriculturist. Learned Government counsel submitted that as there was a bar against granting of permission which they enable a Company to purchases the agricultural land i. e. , in other words there is a bar against the granting permission to sell the land to non- agricultural Company or Factory. The order dated 27-4-1984 passed by the Asst. Commissioner was firstly without jurisdiction and was the result of error of law apparent on the face of the record, as such learned Government counsel submitted that order under review was without jurisdiction and so the Asst. Commissioner have every jurisdiction to recall its order dated 27-4-1984 under the provisions of Sec. 25 of the land Revenue Act cuppled with Sec. 24 thereof. The learned Government counsel submitted that as such the appellate order passed by the Appellate Tribunal suffered from error of law apparent on the face of the record and according to his submission it really amounts to exercise of jurisdiction not vested. The learned Government counsel submitted that as such the appellate order passed by the Appellate Tribunal suffered from error of law apparent on the face of the record and according to his submission it really amounts to exercise of jurisdiction not vested. Although respondent No. 2 has been served with the petition and the notice of the petition, but no appearance has been put on behalf of respondent No. 2. As such the petition is being proceeded and decided ex parte in absence of any representation on behalf of respondents. ( 5 ) I have applied my mind to the contention of learned Government counsel. There appears some substance in the contention of learned Government counsel. ( 6 ) BEFORE I proceed, it will be just and proper to refer to certain provisions in this connection. Sections contained in Chapter II of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act deal with the constitution and the power of the Revenue Officers viz. , the Divisional Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner, the Special Deputy Commissioner as well as the Asstt. Commissioner and the Tahsildar and Special Tahsildar etc. , under Sec. 10 it has been provided that the State Government is entitled to appoint in each districts as many Asstt. Commissioners as it may be deem expedient. It also provides the manner how the Asstt. Commissioner is to be appointed and the sub-sec. (2) and (3) dealt with placing of Asstt. Commissioner as incharge of the Revenue Administration of one or more taluka (sic) in Revenue Sub Divisions. Section 24 of the Act provides that certain Revenue Officers are to be the Revenue Courts. Section 24 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 194 reads as under: Section 24. Revenue Officers to be Revenue Courts: - A Revenue Officer, not below the rank of a Tahsildar while exercising power under this Act, or any other law for the time being in force, to inquire into or to decide any question arising, for determination between the State Government and any person or between parties to any proceedings, shall be a Revenue Courts. "section 25 of the Act is also very material for the purpose of the deciding the question involved. "section 25 of the Act is also very material for the purpose of the deciding the question involved. Section 25 of the Act reads as under:section 25:- Saving of inherent powers of a Revenue Court: Nothing in this Act, shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Revenue Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Revenue Court. " ( 7 ) PERMISSION in this case has been granted in favour of the respondent No. 2 and he purchased the land from the agriculturist or with the agricultural land holders sold their lands in favour of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 is a Company that is Chittapur Cement Works Pvt. Ltd. As per Annexure-A as well that is the order of the Asstt. Commissioner when company filed written objection to the notice which has been issued to it to show cause as to why the permission granted shall not be cancelled. Respondent No. 2 did not claim itself to be an agriculturist. Respondent No. 2 is no doubt a private company and not an agriculturist. Under Section 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act a bar has been created against the alienation of the agricultural land in favour of non-agriculturist persons. Even as to sales in execution of Civil Court decree or in case the provisions for recovery of arrears of land revenue or other sums recoverable as land revenue Sec. 80 provides that no sale of the agricultural land shall be made in favour of non-agriculturist as mentioned in Sec. 87 of the Act. The possession or acquisition of such land by or delivery of possession in favour of such non-agriculturist persons have also been declared not to be lawful. Even Sec. 8 confers certain powers of the Asstt. Commissioner to grant permission for sale, gift or exchange. Section 80 of the Land Reforms Act 1961 reads as under:"80. The possession or acquisition of such land by or delivery of possession in favour of such non-agriculturist persons have also been declared not to be lawful. Even Sec. 8 confers certain powers of the Asstt. Commissioner to grant permission for sale, gift or exchange. Section 80 of the Land Reforms Act 1961 reads as under:"80. Transfers to non-agriculturist barred:- (1) (a) No sale (including sales in execution of a decree of a Civil Court or for recovery of arrears of land revenue or for sums recoverable as arrears of land revenue) gift or exchange or lease or lease of any land or interest therein, or (b) no mortgage of any land or interest therein in which the possession of the mortaged property is delivered to the mortgagee shall be (lawful) in favour of a person: - (i) who is not an agriculturist, or- (ii) who being an agriculturist holds as owner or tenant or partly as owner and partly as tenant land which exceeds the limits specified in section 63 or 64; or (iii) who is not an agricultural labourer; or (iv) who is disentitled under S. 79-A or S. 79-B to acquire or hold any land :provided that the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area or any officer not below the rank of an Assistant Commissioner authorised by the State Government in this behalf in respect of any area may grant permission for such sale, gift or exchange, (to enable a person other than a person disentitled to acquire or hold land under S. 79-A or 79-B) who bona fide intend taking up agriculture to acquire land on such conditions as may be prescribed in addition to the following conditions, namely :- (i) that the tansferee takes up agriculture within one year from the date of acquisition of land, and (ii) that if the transferee gives up agriculture within five years, the land shall vest in the State Government, subject to payment to him of an amount equal to eight times as net annual income of the land or where the land has been purchased, the price paid for the land, if such price is less than eight times the net annual income of the land. (2) (Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to lands granted under S. 77 ). (2) (Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to lands granted under S. 77 ). The material portion of the provision, under which the power to grant permission has been conferred on the Commissioner provides that permission may not be granted for sale or gift or exchange to enable the person who is disentitled to acquire or hold land under S. 79 (A) of the Act or Sec. 79-B of the Act. Section 79-B prohibits the holding of agricultural land by the person mentioned therein and under sub-sec. (1) (b) (ii) a Company is also mentioned. Section 79-B reads as under:-Section 79-B 1. Prohibition of holding agricultural land by certain persons: - (1) with effect on and from the date of commencement of the Amendment Act except as otherwise provided in this Act :- (a) no person other than a person cultivating land personally shall be entitled to hold land; and (b) it shall not be lawful for, (i) an educational, religious or charitable institution or society or trust, other than an institution or society or trust referred to in sub-section (7) of Sec. 63, capable of holding property: (ii) a company; (iii) an association or other body of individuals not being a joint family, whether incorporated or not; or (iv) a co-operative society other than a co- operative farm to hold any land. (2) Every such institution, society, trust, company, association, body or co-operative society,- (a) which holds lands on the date of commencement of the Amendment Act and which is disentitled to hold lands under sub- section (1), shall, within ninety days from the said date to furnish to the Tahsildar within whose jurisdiction the greater part of such land is situated a declaration containing the particulars of such land and such other particulars as maybe prescribed; and (b) which acquires such land after the said date shall also furnish a similar declaration within the prescribed period. (3) The Tahsildar shall, on receipt of the declaration under sub-sec. (2) and after such enquiry as may be prescribed, send a statement containing the prescribed particulars relating to such land to the Deputy Commissioner who shall, by notification, declare that such land shall vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances and take possession thereof in the prescribed manner. (2) and after such enquiry as may be prescribed, send a statement containing the prescribed particulars relating to such land to the Deputy Commissioner who shall, by notification, declare that such land shall vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances and take possession thereof in the prescribed manner. (4) In respect of the land vesting in the State Government under this section an amount as specified in Section 72 shall be paid. Explanation:- For pruposes of this Section it shall be presumed that a land is held by an institution, trust, Company, association or body where it is held by an individual on its behalf. " ( 8 ) A perusal of Section 79 B will show that under it a Comapny is disentitled to hold any agricultural land. When we read Section 80 particularly the provision thereof along with Section 79b it becomes very clear that the permission for sale in favour of a person and in order to enable a person to acquire the property could no doubt be granted. But no such permission can be granted, which may enable acquisition by those persons who are disentitled to acquire or to hold or to possess the land in view of Sections 79a and 79b. A reading of these two sections further reveal that permission cannot be granted for sale (of) the agricultural land which will enable a person to acquire or purchase land, who is disentitled to acquire or to hold the land. Here Respondent No. 2 is a private limited Company and carrying out a business of running a Cement factory and therefore when there is a bar and exception which provides with reference to the Company to the effect that no permission can be granted by the Asst. Commissioner for making sale to enable such a company to acquire the land. Here Respondent No. 2 is a private limited Company and carrying out a business of running a Cement factory and therefore when there is a bar and exception which provides with reference to the Company to the effect that no permission can be granted by the Asst. Commissioner for making sale to enable such a company to acquire the land. The permission that had been granted in this case in my view definitely suffered from error of jurisdiction as well as error of law apparent on the face of record, particutarly, when the law prohibited the transfer of land in favour of a person who is deisentitled to acquire or hold it or power to the transfers which enable a disentitled person as above to acquire and hold land in breach and violation of provision of law under Sections 79a and 79b of the Act and when the law specifically provides that the permission cannot be granted in favour of such person. When the permission had been granted by Assistant Commissioner it amounted to his acting illegally and inadvertently on the part of the authority, and the granting of such permission definitely had tendency to frustrate the very object of the provision of Sections 79b and Section 80. When this has been the position as per law and the facts of the case the question no doubt is whether Asst. Commissioner did act legally in reviewing and recalling his order dated 27-4-1984. That under Section 24 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act the Asstt. Commissioner can be said to be the Revenue Court, in view of the fact that while sub-section (1) creates a bar against transfer then that bar could only be removed by grant of permission under the provisions. A person, who wants to transfer his property, gets the right to make transfer on grant of permission and by removing of that bar, whether that bar should be removed or by granting permission to the applicant definitely raised disputes between the person seeking permission and State Government and therefore the Asst. Commissioner had to consider the question and arrive at a proper decision before granting the permission. Because granting of permission is no mere ritual. This being the position of law in my opinion that Asst. Commissioner is the Revenue Court within the frame work of Section 24 of the Act. Commissioner had to consider the question and arrive at a proper decision before granting the permission. Because granting of permission is no mere ritual. This being the position of law in my opinion that Asst. Commissioner is the Revenue Court within the frame work of Section 24 of the Act. This being the position of law that Asst. Commissioner is a Revenue Court within the framework of Section 24, then Section 25 of the Land Revenue Act no doubt did apply to him and therefore inherent power vested in every Court to pass such order as may be necessary to be passed in the interest of justice as well as to avoid abuse of the process of the Court, the Asst. Commissioner also enjoyed inherent jurisdiction. ( 9 ) IT is no doubt true that power of review should either be conferred expressly or it should be taken to be implied. When I hold that Revenue Court has got inherent power to do justice and nothing in the provision of the Act as to restrict or otherwise curtail that power, I am of the opinion tha the Revenue Courts have got power to review in exercise if inherent jurisdiction or to recall the order which appears to be amounting to abuse of the process of the Court or an order which is likely to cause injustice or which is likely to frustrate the very object and purpose of the Act. ( 10 ) REVIEW is no doubt not an appeal in disguise. It is also been held in many cases even their Lordships of the Supreme Court dealing with the review that Courts shall have to correct Ex-debito justitiate the errors which one apparent on the face of the record and which result or which are likely to result in abuse of process of the Court. ( 11 ) THAT if the decision of the Court appears to be result in definite error apparent committed by Court and it has the tendency of resulting in abuse of the process of the Court then in order to prevent abuse of the process of Court, there is power inherent in the Court to recall and review its order, particularly an order which is palpably erroenous is obviously based clear cut misapprehension of law for whant of jurisdiction. Dealing with the power of review in exercise of inherent power the Lordship of the Supreme Court with reference to the High Court power to review its own order under Article 226 of the Constitution (sic ). ( 12 ) IN the case of Surendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan reported in ( AIR 1979 SC 1047 ), after referring to the observations of the Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1963 SC 1909 ). It has been observed as follows:-"it is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1963 SC 1909 ) there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But there are definitely limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power to review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the Sub-ordinate Court. " ( 13 ) A perusal of this Judgment indicates that in cases where the Court in which the inherent powers are vested or the law under which Courts have been constituted declares that those Courts are possessed of inherent powers to pass such order which are necessary in order to do justice or to prevent abuse of the process of Courts and that the provisions of the Act should not deemed to control the inherent power, such Courts which have got inherent powers as mentioned earlier, have also got power to review or to recall their orders in special circumstances or on specified grounds as above. ( 14 ) APPLYING the above principles of law to the interpretation of Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, I am of the opinion that where the order is palpably wrong and it suffered from error apparent on the face of the record and that if the order is allowed to remain in operation it may result in abuse of the process of the Court or it may result in mis-carriage of justice, the Court i. e. , Revenue Court under Section 25 has got power to review or recall its order. ( 15 ) THAT being the position of the law, as per perusal of Section 80 read Section 79 (B), in my opinion it is very clear that the Asst. Commissioner could not grant the permission to enable the Company to acquire land, or any permission could not be granted for sale of agricultural land which would have enabled the company to acquire the agricultural land as under the provisions of law it was debarred and disentitled from acquiring or holding the agricultural land. That being the position I am of the opinion that the Commissioner if he reviewed his order and recalled his order dated 27-4-1984 and passed order on 31-3-1986 he did not commit any jurisdictional error and the order dated 31-3-1986 was within the jurisdiction as he has power to review and recall his order. In my opinion, the appellate Tribunal committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record in not applying his mind while deciding the appeal, to the contention of learned counsel for the State to the effect under Section 25 of the Land Revenue Act the Assistant Commissioner had inherent power for being exercised on the interest of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of Court and it included power to review and it did not consider that aspect of the matter which relates to Section 25 of the Land Revenue Act, the appellate Tribunal no doubt committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record when it interfered with the order of the Assistant Commissioner on a completely erroneous view of law as to the power of the Assistant Commissioner to review its order. Thus considered I am of the opinion that these petitions deserves to be allowed and the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 13-2-1987 deserves to be quashed. As such the writ petitions are hereby allowed and the order impugned viz. , the order dated 13-2-1987 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is hereby quashed. Petition allowed --- *** --- .