JUDGMENT : Manoj Misra, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri S.N. Singh for respondent No. 2. 2. Considering the ground on which this order is being passed, learned counsel for the contesting respondent does not propose to take time to file counter affidavit and is agreeable for final disposal of this petition, at this stage itself. 3. The controversy, in short, which has given rise to the present writ petition can be summarized as follows: 4. In respect of allotment of Chak, the second respondent, namely, Chak holder No. 463 had filed an objection before the Assistant Consolidation Officer which came before the Consolidation Officer, Rahra, Amroha for adjudication as case No. 9/597, who, vide order dated 11th October, 2013, rejected the objection taken by the second respondent. 5. Against the order dated 11th October, 2013, second respondent filed an appeal No. 24/390 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Moradabad, which came to be dismissed by order dated 20th November, 2014. 6. Instead of filing revision against the appellate order, the second respondent filed an application before the Consolidation Officer for recall of order dated 11th October, 2013 by taking another plea, which was not taken in the earlier objection. However, while filing the recall application, on 1st December, 2014, the second respondent suppressed the fact that against the order dated 11th October, 2013 he had already filed an appeal which was dismissed. 7. The Consolidation Officer, without being aware that the appeal preferred against the order dated 11th October, 2013 has been dismissed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, proceeded to pass an order on 7th January, 2015 thereby recalling the order dated 11th October, 2013 and altering the Chak thereby affecting the petitioner. 8. Upon coming to know that the order obtained from the Court of Consolidation Officer, Rahra, Amroha was without disclosure that appeal had been dismissed, the petitioner moved an application before the Consolidation Officer for recall of order dated 7th January, 2015 on the ground that the said order was obtained by playing fraud. 9. 8. Upon coming to know that the order obtained from the Court of Consolidation Officer, Rahra, Amroha was without disclosure that appeal had been dismissed, the petitioner moved an application before the Consolidation Officer for recall of order dated 7th January, 2015 on the ground that the said order was obtained by playing fraud. 9. The Consolidation Officer upon being apprised of the factual position as also that the earlier order passed by him was in ignorance of the fact that the appeal against the order dated 11th October, 2013 had already been dismissed, vide order dated 4th February, 2015, proceeded to recall the order dated 7th January, 2015 and issued notices to the parties for further action. 10. Aggrieved by the order dated 4th February, 2015, second respondent filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Amroha, which came to be allowed by the impugned order dated 23rd September, 2017 on the ground that the Consolidation Officer did not have jurisdiction to review its own order and accordingly the order dated 4th February, 2015 was without jurisdiction and therefore liable to be set aside. The revision was accordingly allowed and the order dated 4th February, 2015 was set aside and the order dated 7th January, 2015 was restored. 11. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no doubt the Consolidation Officer may not have power to review but every Court has inherent power to recall an order if one of the three conditions are satisfied : (a) that the order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and the recall application has been filed at the instance of the party who has not been heard; (b) that the order has been passed without jurisdiction; and (c) that the order has been obtained by playing fraud upon the Court. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order dated 7th January, 2015 was obtained by playing fraud upon the Court, inasmuch as, the said order had recalled the earlier order dated 11th October, 2013, passed by the Consolidation Officer against which the recall applicant had filed an appeal which was dismissed and the order under appeal was affirmed, therefore it was duty of the recall applicant to bring to the notice of the Court that the appeal against the said order has already resulted in dismissal but the said fact having not been disclosed, the order was obtained by suppressing material fact from the Court which amounted to fraud on Court. 12. Sri S.N. Singh, who has appeared on behalf of second respondent, submitted that the Consolidation Officer had not heard the grievance of second respondent and valuable roadside plot had been allotted to the petitioner, therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation sub-serves the ends of justice and should not be interfered with. 13. Sri S.N. Singh, however has not been able to dispute the factual position that against the order dated 11th October, 2013, passed by the Consolidation Officer an appeal was preferred before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation by the second respondent himself which was dismissed on merits by order dated 20th November, 2014 and that dismissal of the aforesaid appeal was not disclosed by the second respondent while making application for recall of order dated 11th October, 2013 even though the recall application was filed after dismissal of the appeal. 14. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court is of the view that no doubt the Consolidation Courts have no power to review an order but power to recall vests in all courts when order is obtained by playing fraud or suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction which is patent (vide Budhia Swan v. Gopinath Deb, (1999) 4 SCC 396 ). Since it has been demonstrated that the order dated 7th January, 2015 was obtained by suppressing material fact as regards dismissal of appeal against the order dated 11th October, 2013, the Consolidation Officer, upon being apprised of the aforesaid factual position was well within his jurisdiction to recall the order. Since it has been demonstrated that the order dated 7th January, 2015 was obtained by suppressing material fact as regards dismissal of appeal against the order dated 11th October, 2013, the Consolidation Officer, upon being apprised of the aforesaid factual position was well within his jurisdiction to recall the order. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the Deputy Director of Consolidation should not have interfered with the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 4th February, 2015. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 23rd September, 2017, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Amroha is set aside and the order dated 4th February, 2015 passed by the Consolidation Officer is restored. The Consolidation Officer shall thereafter proceed in accordance with law as directed by order dated 4th February, 2015. 15. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.