JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. In filing this writ petition the petitioners have assailed the impugned order under Annexures-4 & 5 to this petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the impugned order under Annexure-4 on the premises that looking to the provisions contained in Section 7 of the Orissa Board of Revenue Act, the Settlement Commissioner had no power to consider the review application, it is on the other hand said power lies only with the Board of Revenue. The second limb of the argument made by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner is that even assuming that the Commissioner has the review power even then looking to the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case in between State of Orissa and others Vs. Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Cuttack and others as reported in AIR 1998 SC 3067 , the authority has only the power of review subject to his/her finding that the order of the original authority contain mistakes or errors apparent on the fact of the record. 3. In his objection, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that the question as to whether the Board of Revenue has the power of review or the Commissioner, Settlement has the power of review in exercise of power under Section 7 of the Board of Revenue Act, has already been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court considering a case in between State of Orissa and others Vs. Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Cuttack and others reported in AIR 1998 SC 3067 . It is therefore, contended that the ground No.1 raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has to be rejected. Now coming to answer on the ground No.2 indicated hereinabove, learned Additional Government Advocate taking resort to the very same judgment particularly to the discussions made in paragraph No.8 of the aforesaid judgment contended that the review authority has power to get into the questions involved therein and looking to the discussions and observations of the Commissioner particularly made in paragraphs 7 & 8 of the impugned order under Annexure-4, submitted that the Commissioner did no wrong in remitting the matter. Further, looking to the conditions in the remand order submitted that since the petitioner has been given a chance for establishing his case by further production of records, the petitioner is not prejudiced in anyway. 4. Further, looking to the conditions in the remand order submitted that since the petitioner has been given a chance for establishing his case by further production of records, the petitioner is not prejudiced in anyway. 4. Considering the review application and upon perusing the judgment cited at Bar and relied upon by both the sides (supra), this Court finds the question No.1 as if the Member, Board of Revenue or the Commissioner who heard the matter has the power under Section 7 of the Act, has been settled by Hon’ble the Apex Court where the Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly observed that the review jurisdiction in their opinion be treated as actually to one appellate order, even the revisional jurisdiction particularly when a particular Court is dealing with the review of the order passed in revisional jurisdiction. No doubt, the review power should be something than the revisional jurisdiction and in concluding the case, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above noted decision has the considered opinion that the review power under the 51 Act also intended for correction of mistakes or errors apparent on the face of the record. Now coming to the second limb of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds, in the jurisdiction of the revisional Court dealing with the matter in similar situation, the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph Nos.7 & 8 of the said Judgment observed as follows :- “7.0. While submitting on the third question the learned counsel for the opposite party has stated that once the Commissioner Settlement has passed order he cannot recall its own order by exercising the power u/s.7(1) of the Board of Revenue Act 1951 as no point of time such power has been delegated to the Commissioner Settlement. Relying on the reported decisions of the Hon’ble High Court he has further argued that the Court and Tribunal have no inherent power to recall their own order even if their orders are erroneous. Only Civil Court has such power to invoke his own order u/s.151 of the C.P.C. He also asserts that it is well settled that power to recall own order can be exercised in rarest of rare cases where substantial injury has been caused to suitor. Only Civil Court has such power to invoke his own order u/s.151 of the C.P.C. He also asserts that it is well settled that power to recall own order can be exercised in rarest of rare cases where substantial injury has been caused to suitor. In the facts and circumstances of the case such power will not be available to the Commissioner as the suitor one, Collector, Khurda was not a party in the revision petition. The Standing Counsel on the other hand relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court has argued that it is now to well settled that if the fraud is practiced on the Court, the Court can review his own order and set aside the decree. It is also well settled that Court can correct its own error without any application made by the party and can modify its own order restoring back the litigants their own portion. The principle as further supported by the objection of the Hon’ble High Court, made in the order dated 15.3.1994 passed in O.J.C. No.1245/94 filed by Sadhu Charan Biswal which is reproduced below:- “The settlement Commissioner appears to have invoke his jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Board of Revenue Act. There cannot be any dispute that the proposition for review is a creature of statute and unless the statute specifically confers that power no authority can entertain an application for review. But at the same time it is too well settled that every tribunal has its inherent jurisdiction to recall an earlier order passed by it if it is satisfied that the earlier order was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud or certain patent error has been committed by it which has caused gross miscarriage of justice.” In view of the argument and counter arguments made by the parties and well settle principles laid down by the Hon’ble High Court, I am of the view that power of recall is available to the Commissioner Settlement if the order is obtained by misrepresentation or fraud or certain patent error has been committed by it which has caused miscarriage of justice. In the present case the alleged original patta granted by the ex-intermediary in favour of Mohan Biswal, rent receipts marked “without prejudice” the certified copy of the Tenants’ Ledger issued by the Tahasildar forming the basis of the opposite party’s case which have been alleged to be forged did not stand the list of their genuineness by verifying them with the Tenants’ Ledger, Jamabandi etc. available as original in the office of the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar who is the custodian of map and records of the disputed land. Hence the applicant’s claim that the opposite party has got the disputed land settled by practicing fraud on the Court cannot be ruled out. When the applicant alleges that the documents of the opposite party are forged he should get a chance to substantiate his allegation. Besides in the impugned order dated 11.2.93 passed by the Commissioner in the revision petition No.1203/89 there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The original revision petition was in respect of plot No.332/1882 area Ac. 3.600 decimal. This was one of the 208 plots finding mention in khata no.619 having a total area Ac.1351.035 dec. standing in the name of G.A. Department in the Hal records. The direction of this Court in the impugned order reads as below:- “In view of this, it is held that the name of the petitioner be deleted from the remarks column and put in the tenants column in the name G.A. Department in stitiban status in khata No.619, Plot No.332/1882 area Ac.3.600 dec. Kisam remaining the same.” Since the hal khata no.619 comprising much more land than merely plot no.332/1882 assertion of the name of the opposite party, the petitioner of the revision petition no.1203/89 in the tenants column in place of G.A. Department in Khata No.619 is not feasible. Such an error apparent on the face of the orders also needs to be set-right. 8.0. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order dated 11.2.93 passed in revision petition no.1203/89 is hereby recalled. The original revision petition no.1203/89 filed u/s.15 of the Act is hereby restored to the case record for hearing it on merit.” 5. 8.0. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order dated 11.2.93 passed in revision petition no.1203/89 is hereby recalled. The original revision petition no.1203/89 filed u/s.15 of the Act is hereby restored to the case record for hearing it on merit.” 5. From perusal of the direction part made in paragraph No.8 of the impugned order, this Court finds that in paragraph No.7 the Commissioner having held that there has been no endeavour with regard to the claim of the petitioner, which plot again involved a very big patch of land belonging to the State Government before giving particular direction, the order of remand is not erroneous but then looking to the discussions made in paragraph Nos. 7 & 8 coupled with paragraph No.9 of the impugned order, this Court finds there was no scope for open remand and the remand should have been confined in the matter of considering the claim of the petitioner over acre 3.600 decimal, plot no.332/1882 from out of a big patch of land measuring acre 1351.035 decimals. 6. In this view of the matter, this Court while clarifying the order passed by the reviewing authority, directs the revisional authority to consider the aspect involved in paragraph No.8 of the review order and decide the matter afresh. Now looking to the challenge to the impugned order under Annexure-5, this Court finds after the remand order being passed under Annxure-4, the Revisional authority is yet to take up the matter to decide in terms of the direction contained in the proceeding under Section 7 of the 1957, Act and the revisional authority has just finished the revision up to the level of question of maintainability again raised by the petitioner therein. Since the revision petition is still pending for consideration, this Court does not find any scope for interfering in the order under Annexure-5, except directing the revisional authority to restart the revision and take a decision in the revision keeping in view the discussions made in paragraph No.7 and the directions contained in paragraph No.8 of the review order at Annexure-4. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above clarification and direction. Parties to bear their own cost.