JUGDMENT - PALSHIKAR V.G., J.:---By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Collector on 10th October, 1991 reviewing his own order passed earlier on 7th June, 1991. 2. Certain lands belonging to the petitioner or his predecessors were acquired for the use of Defence Department under Defence of India Rules and was continued under the Requisition (Continuance of Powers) Act, 1947. The suit land along with other requisitioned lands were handed over to the police department by the defence department as per the Government of Bombay order dated 6-7-1950. According to the terms of transfer the State Government was to acquire the title of the lands under the Military assets and as such it was necessary to continue these lands as requisitioned under section 7 of the Bombay Lands Requisition Act, 1948. A resolution to that effect under section 7 was therefore issued on 9-3-1951. 3. The petitioner made an application for derequisitioning his land. Enquiry was made in pursuance of this application on 23-4-1991. Officer-in-charge for requisition branch put up a note to the Collector recommending release of the land from requisition. Ultimately derequisition order was issued on 7-6-1991. After the order of requisition was made on 7-6-1991 it was brought to the notice of the Collector that basic error has been committed while passing the order of requisition on 7-6-1991. The Collector did not have any jurisdiction to do so under the Act and therefore he took up suo motto proceeding for review and review has been made on 10-10-1991 by the order which is now impugned in this petition. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Collector has no power for review under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 and unless that power specifically exist, the exercise of reviewing power by the Collector is wholly without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. Replying the submission it was pointed out on behalf of the Collector by the learned Additional Government Advocate that with reference to the Act that there is no such power vested in the Collector to grant derequisition of the earlier order and therefore it is without jurisdiction. When this was realised by the Collector he has reviewed his own order and therefore no interference is called for by this Court. 5. When this was realised by the Collector he has reviewed his own order and therefore no interference is called for by this Court. 5. It is true that the Collector did not have the power or jurisdiction to review his own order made earlier but it is equally true in the provisions of section 9 that the Collector had no authority whatsoever to derequisition the land in the first place. Section 9(1) reads as under: "9(1) The State Government may at any time, release from requisition any land requisitioned or continue to be subject to requisition under this Act." Admittedly there is no delegation of this power by the State to the Collector and consequently the Collector could not have done it. By the impugned order the Collector has pointed out how the error was committed by the officer-in-charge of derequisition branch and the Collector was mislead to make that order. Apart from that in law the Collector did not have the power to do so. Even if the misleading part is ignored for sometime the order of the Collector is therefore clearly without jurisdiction. At the same time the earlier order dated 7-6-1991 is also without jurisdiction. We cannot in exercise of our writ jurisdiction grant the petitioner's prayer for setting aside the order of 10-10-1991 as it will have the effect of restoring the order of 7-6-1991 which was without jurisdiction. Such illegal order cannot be revived by the writ of this Court. Hence we have no alternative but to allow this petition and set aside both the orders passed by the Collector. Accordingly the orders dated 7-6-1991 and 10-9-1991 are hereby set aside. The State shall be at liberty to take up appropriate proceeding for retaking of possession of the land, if it is handed over in pursuance of the order of derequisition to the petitioner or their successors. The petitioner shall also be at liberty to apply for derequisition of his land as per the provisions of the Act. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Petition allowed. -----