JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - This writ application is directed against the order under Annexure-8 passed by the Land Reforms Commissioner-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Orissa, Cuttack (in short, the "Commissioner").It appears that present opposite party No. 1 had filed Settlement Revision Case No. 4 of 1997 in the Court of the Commissioner and after hearing both parties, the revision was dismissed by order dated 12-5-1998. Thereafter,present opposite party No. 1 filed Misc. Case No. 53 of 1998 for recalling the order dated 12-5-1998 and the Commissioner has recalled the earlier order and allowed the revision of present opposite party No. 1. as per order under Annexure-8. Such order is being impugned on the ground that the Commissioner did not have any jurisdiction to entertain an application for review. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 1 submitted that every Court or tribunal has got inherent power to recall its earlier decision and as such it cannot be said that order under Annexure-8 is without jurisdiction. 3. Law is well settled that power of review of earlier judicial or quasi judicial order can be exercised only if there is a specific provision contained in the statute conferring such jurisdiction on the particular authority. Review is a creature of the statute and in absence of any specific power conferring jurisdiction to review an earlier decision, no judicial authority or quasi-judicial authority can review its own earlier order. The power of recalling an earlier order is slightly different. When some orders are passed without giving opportunity of hearing, it is stated that every court or even tribunal has got inherent power of recalling such orders. Such power of recalling cannot be equated with power of review. 4. In the present case, earlier decision was given on merit after hearing both parties. It is not a case where the matter was disposed of without giving opportunity of hearing. As such, there was no occasion to exercise the so-called power of recalling the earlier order. The order under Annexure-8 clearly amounts to an order reviewing the earlier order which is not contemplated in the Orissa Survey & Settlement Act. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 1 then contended that as opposite party No. 1 had filed the petition for recalling the earlier order, he has not challenged the order under Annexure-7 passed in favour of the present Petitioner. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 1 then contended that as opposite party No. 1 had filed the petition for recalling the earlier order, he has not challenged the order under Annexure-7 passed in favour of the present Petitioner. He has submitted that in case it is found that the order under Annexure-8 is without jurisdiction, proper opportunity should be given to opposite party No. 1 to seek his remedy by filing a writ petition. 6. Law is well settled that orders passed by the Settlement authorities neither create nor extinguish title. Since validity of order under Annexure-7 has not been considered, it is open to opposite party No. 1 to seek his remedy before any appropriate forum including civil court. Notwithstanding the order passed under Annexure-7, it is always open to opposite party No. 1 to establish his title in a competent Civil Court and if such a civil suit is filed, it goes without saying that such suit shall be disposed of in accordance with law without being influenced by that the fact the revision filed by opposite party No.1 had been rejected. This position is clear in view of the well settled law that Settlement records neither create nor extinguish title. 7. Subject to the aforesaid observation, the writ application is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Writ application allowed. Final Result : Allowed