JUDGMENT Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. Heard learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for opposite party nos. 1 and 2. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28.4.2015 passed by the opposite party no.1/Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad Division, Faizabad in the proceedings under Section 219, U.P. Land Revenue Act. 3. As per the impugned order a case No. 31, under Section 33/39 U.P.Land Revenue Act was filed by the petitioners/applicants before the Sub Divisional Officer, Beekapur, Faizabad for correction. The said case was decided on merit vide order dated 14.2.2005 and the case filed under Section 33/39, U.P. Land Revenue Act was rejected. Thereafter an application for amendment dated 16.2.2005 was preferred by the petitioners/applicants on the ground that the name of the petitioner finds place in Fasli 1381-1386 and the said fact has not been mentioned in the case filed under Section 33/39,U.P. Land Revenue Act, as such the order dated 14.2.2005 may be recalled and necessary amendment be made. The learned Sub Divisional Officer, Beekapur, Faizabad vide order dated 13.1.2006 had allowed the said application, which, in fact amounts to recall/review of his earlier order. The revision preferred against the said order by the respondent no.3 was allowed by the impugned order dated 28.4.2015 which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that Section 202 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 clearly provides power to any revenue court to correct any error or omission in its order within 90 days either of his own motion or on the application moved by the party. 5. It is submitted that the fact that name of the petitioners appeared in the revenue records of Fasli 1381-1386 was not considered while rejecting the application filed under Section 33/39, U.P. Land Revenue Act; and as such the learned Court below was fully empowered to make necessary amendment in its order in exercise of powers under Section 202 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 7. It is the admitted case of petitioners that while moving the application under Section 33/39, U.P.Land Revenue Act, the aforesaid fact that the petitioners' name appeared in the revenue records of Fasli 1381-1386 was not mentioned. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 7. It is the admitted case of petitioners that while moving the application under Section 33/39, U.P.Land Revenue Act, the aforesaid fact that the petitioners' name appeared in the revenue records of Fasli 1381-1386 was not mentioned. The said application filed under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act was decided on merits vide order dated 14.2.2005. The intent and import of Section 202, U.P. Land Revenue Act is to provide power to revenue court or officer by whom an order has been passed in any proceeding under the said Act to make necessary correction in its order either on his own motion or on the application moved by the party, after such notice to the parties as may be necessary. It clearly means that such correction is permissible which is typographical in nature and which does not affect any material part of the case. The Land Revenue Act does not provide power of review to the revenue courts. The order dated 13.1.2006 clearly amounts to review of the earlier order dated 14.2.2005, as the Court on the basis of certain facts which were not on records earlier has allowed the application for amendment in purported exercise of power under Section 202 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. Such exercise of power is not permissible under the law. 8. I am of the considered view that the revisional court has rightly and correctly allowed the revision filed by the respondent no.3 and has rightly set aside the order dated 13.1.2006 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Beekapur, Faizabad in case No. 31 filed under Section 33/39, U.P. Land Revenue Act. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order impugned. 9. The writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. 10. However, it is made clear that it would be open for the petitioners to adopt appropriate legal recourse in case the same is available under the law for redressal of their grievance.