ORDER : Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. 1. Heard Sri Satya Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondent nos.1 and 4 and Sri Ran Vijai Singh, learned counsel representing U.P. Power Corporation Limited. 2. Under challenge in this petition is an order dated 18.11.2004 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Division, Gonda whereby he is said to have reviewed earlier order dated 31.10.2000 and has set-aside the same. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the provision of U.P. Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), there is no provision which permits the Additional Commissioner to review his own order. He has further stated that except for the Board of Revenue under Section 220 of the Act, no other court or authority under the said Act is empowered to review its own order. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact, the order dated 31.10.2000 passed earlier by the Additional Commissioner was perfectly lawful for the reason that it has elaborately dealt with the case of the petitioner which was based on an order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 24.02.1976 under Section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act whereby the land in question, namely, plot no.4003/01 which has been assigned new number as 1375, having an area of 0.51 acre, situate in village Phulvariya, hamlet of Vishunapur, District Balrampur was ordered to be recorded in the name of the petitioner and the name of gaon sabha was ordered to be expunged. He has also stated that the said order dated 24.02.1976 was duly implemented and accordingly amaldaramad of the said order was made in CH Form 23, however while preparing CH Form 41 and 45, the Consolidation Lekhpal inadvertently did not incorporate the said order in the said forms which ultimately resulted in omission of the name of the petitioner in the revenue records which were prepared after consolidation operations were over. He has thus stated that it is in this background that the petitioner moved the application before the Sub-Divisional Officer under Sections 33/39 of the Act but the Sub-Divisional Officer rejected the said application cursorily by passing an absolutely cryptic order on 22.07.1999. He has thus stated that it is in this background that the petitioner moved the application before the Sub-Divisional Officer under Sections 33/39 of the Act but the Sub-Divisional Officer rejected the said application cursorily by passing an absolutely cryptic order on 22.07.1999. He has further stated that the revisional order dated 31.10.2000 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Devi Patan Division, Gonda did not suffer from any illegality and irregularity whatsoever, which may have warranted the Additional Commissioner to have reviewed the said order and passed the order dated 18.11.2004, which is under challenge herein. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel as also learned counsel representing U.P Power Corporation have submitted that in fact the revisional order dated 31.10.2000 was passed by the Additional Commissioner in a proceedings instituted by the petitioner under Section 219 of the Act, where the power corporation was not impleaded as a party and as such in fact while passing the order dated 18.11.2004, the Additional Commissioner concerned cannot be said to have reviewed his order dated 31.10.2000; rather the said order is referable to restoration/recall application preferred by the Power Corporation. 5. In aid of his submission, learned Standing Counsel as also learned counsel appearing for Power Corporation have submitted that under Section 201 of the Act, re-hearing of a matter is permissible by the revenue courts provided that party concerned appears before the court and shows good cause for his nonappearance and satisfies the officer/court that there has been a failure of justice. They have also stated that since the order dated 31.10.2000 had resulted in not only failure of justice but in prejudice cause to the power corporation for the reason that power corporation has been in possession over the land in question since long over which it has constructed a godown and hence the power corporation was a necessary party before the revisional court and thus the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.07.1999 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party. 6. I have heard learned counsel for respective parties and have also perused the record available on this writ petition. 7. 6. I have heard learned counsel for respective parties and have also perused the record available on this writ petition. 7. The sole question for consideration in this case is as to whether any prejudice was caused to U.P. Power Corporation by the order dated 31.10.2000 passed by the revisional court or any failure of justice had occurred on account of the said order dated 31.10.2000. Further, it is also to be determined in this case that as to whether the order dated 24.02.1976 passed by the Consolidation Officer which is the basis of the claim of the petitioner was lawfully passed or not. It will also be required by this Court to determine as to what is the basis of the claim of Power Corporation over the land in question. 8. This Court outlining the most important issue relating to the order dated 24.02.1976 said to have been passed by the Consolidation Officer had passed the following order on 22.03.2017, which is extracted herein-below:- "Heard learned counsel for the parties. Prima facie, on a perusal of the records the Court finds that the land in question was not recorded in the name of Power House nor in the name of Madhyanchal Viddyut Vitran Corporation Ltd. at whose behest the earlier order of the revisional Court dated 31.10.2000 was recalled by the Commissioner and thereafter the revision of the petitioner was rejected. Secondly, none of the Courts below have dwelt on the issue as to whether Consolidation Officer had passed the order dated 24.02.1976 under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1953'), as, if such an order had been passed then it is inexplicable as to how in the Khataunis prepared subsequently during consolidation proceedings the said land came to be recorded as Abadi. Unless and until the respondents are able to show that no such order was passed by the Consolidation Officer this Court would not shuts its eyes to the same merely on account of the provisions contained in Section 27(3) and Section 49 of the Act, 1953 and in such a factual scenario it is highly doubtful that the bar contained therein would apply in the present case, as, if the order of the Consolidation Officer had attained finality, then, it would be a moot point to be considered as to why the same could not be enforced under Rule 109-A of the Rules made under the Act, 1953, as, resort to the bar of Section 27(3) and 49 of the Act, 1953, if any, would clearly cause grave miscarriage of justice. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is meant to be exercised wherever injustice has been caused and this Court would not be wanting, subject of course to the aforesaid, in rendering substantial justice on mere technicality. Let learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel produce the relevant records and seek instructions as to whether the Consolidation Officer had passed an order on 24.02.1976 as is being asserted by the petitioner or not. If so, under what circumstances entries came to be recorded in Form CH-41 and 45 contrary to the said order, annexing therewith true extracts of Khataunis in respect of land in question pertaining to 1356 and 1359 Fasli as also Form CH-11 and 23 prepared during Consolidation Proceedings. It would be better if the respondents file an affidavit in the light of the aforesaid. List/put up on 12.04.2017 amongst first ten cases. Interim order granted earlier to continue until further orders of this Court. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the parties within a period of 24 hours on payment of usual charges, if possible". 9. It appears that in response to the said order, learned Standing Counsel has filed supplementary counter affidavit which has duly been sworn in by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, District Balrampur. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the parties within a period of 24 hours on payment of usual charges, if possible". 9. It appears that in response to the said order, learned Standing Counsel has filed supplementary counter affidavit which has duly been sworn in by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, District Balrampur. In para 6 of the said affidavit, it has been recorded by the Tehsildar that the order dated 24.02.1976 was passed in Case No.1835, under Section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, Bahraichi vs. Gaon Sabha, which is found entered in "rks" register (which is a register containing the details of the decided files, which are entered on such files being received). 10. The assertions made in para-6 of the said supplementary counter affidavit further reveal that the said case file has been found registered at serial no.670 in the record room of Collectorate, Balrampur and that there is a remark that the file was weeded out on 11.02.1987. On such basis, further assertion is that the said order could not be verified. 11. Para-6 of the said supplementary counter affidavit dated 26.09.2018 is extracted hereinbelow:- "6. That the order dated 24.02.1976 which is passed in suit no.1835 under section 9A (2) of the C.H.Act Bahraichi vs and others is got entered in register "rks" (the register in which decided files or entered on its receiving) at serial no.670 in the record room of collectorate Balrampur and there is remark of beading out the concern file on 11.02.1987, thus the annexed order could not be verified." 12. In the said affidavit, it had also been asserted in para-9 that a suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.Act was filed before the Assistant Collector, First Class, Balrampur on 15.12.2000 by the State with the cause title "State of U.P. vs. Bahraichi" which was registered as suit no.5/5/5/7/9/14/18/27/68/71 and was decided on 31.05.2014, before the proceedings were initiated by the U.P. Power Corporation in which the order dated 18.11.2004 has been passed. In para-10 of the said supplementary counter affidavit, assertion has been made that copy of the "rks" register, CH Form 41 and 45 and copy of the order dated 31.05.2014 whereby the suit filed by the State under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A & L.R Act was dismissed, have been annexed. Paragraphs 9 and 10 are extracted hereinbelow:- "9. In para-10 of the said supplementary counter affidavit, assertion has been made that copy of the "rks" register, CH Form 41 and 45 and copy of the order dated 31.05.2014 whereby the suit filed by the State under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A & L.R Act was dismissed, have been annexed. Paragraphs 9 and 10 are extracted hereinbelow:- "9. That further it is also pointed out that a suit under section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A & L.R.Act was filed before the Additional Assistant Collector, First Class Balrampur on 15.12.2000 by the State of U.P. vs. Bahraichi and others, suit no.5/5/5/7/9/14/18/27/68/71 which was decided on 31.05.2014 before the opposite party no. proceeding were initiated by the U.P.P.C.L vs Bahraichi and others in which the opposite party no.1 passed an order on 18.11.2004, thus, the land in dispute was recorded in the column of Abadi and in pursuance of the same the suit under section 229-B was dismissed. 10. That the deponent is annexing (1) khatauni of 1359 fasli, (2) the C.H. Form 11, (3) copy of the "rks" register, (4) C.H.Form 41, (5) C.H. Form 45 and (6) order dated 31.05.2014 of suit no.5/5/5/7/9/14/18/27/68/71 under 229-B of the U.P.Z.A & L.R.Act are annexed as Annexure no's. S-1 to S6 to the present supplementary affidavit." 13. The U.P. Power Corporation Limited has also filed short counter affidavit, in para 4 whereof it has been stated that abadi land is always excluded from consolidation operations, as such the order passed by the Consolidation Officer (the order dated 24.02.1976) is illegal. 14. Thus, the case set up by U.P. Power Corporation is that the order dated 24.02.1976 is illegal. No case has ever been set up by U.P. Power Corporation that the order dated 24.02.1976 is a forged or non-existent order. 15. On the other hand, from the assertions made in the supplementary counter affidavit dated 28.09.2018 filed on behalf of the State authorities, it is clear that even the State authorities do not deny the existence of the order dated 24.02.1976. It is also relevant to note that the suit filed by the State seeking declaration of its right over the land in question under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A & L.R.Act has also been dismissed on 31.05.2014. It is also relevant to note that the suit filed by the State seeking declaration of its right over the land in question under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A & L.R.Act has also been dismissed on 31.05.2014. Thus, in absence of any denial or in absence of any record or evidence available regarding non-existence of the order dated 24.02.1976 passed by the Consolidation Officer, in my considered opinion, the respondents have completely failed to establish any case. 16. As observed above, the petitioner had filed an objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming title over the land which was decided by the Consolidation Officer on 24.02.1976. It is also not denied; rather is undisputed that amaldaramad of the said order dated 24.02.1976 was also made in CH Form 23. Thus assertion made on behalf of the petitioner that on account of inadvertence or mistake his name could not be recorded in CH Forms 41 and 45 appears to be correct which ultimately resulted in preparation of the khatauni by the officers of the revenue department on completion of consolidation operations excluding the name of the petitioner. In such a situation, the petitioner is, thus, armed with a valid order passed under Section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act way back on 24.02.1976. 17. It is the duty of the consolidation authorities to give effect or to make amaldaramad or to make necessary corrections in the revenue records which are prepared in succession, in case any valid order is passed by the consolidation courts (which in this case is the order dated 24.02.1976 passed by the Consolidation Officer under Section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act). In case, in the face of a valid order, the same is not recorded or amaldaramad of such an order is not made or the same by inadvertence or mistake or for any other reason gets excluded to be incorporated in successive revenue records during consolidation operations, the same would not deprive the person concerned of his right or title in the land in question based on such order. 18. In this case, as already observed above, the Consolidation Officer had passed the order on 24.02.1976 whereby the name of the petitioner was ordered to be recorded after expunging the name of the gaon sabha from the land in question. 18. In this case, as already observed above, the Consolidation Officer had passed the order on 24.02.1976 whereby the name of the petitioner was ordered to be recorded after expunging the name of the gaon sabha from the land in question. The State authorities while contesting the matter by filing supplementary counter affidavit have completely failed to establish that the order dated 24.02.1976 passed by the Consolidation Officer is not a genuine order. The Power Corporation in its counter affidavit also does not dispute or deny the order dated 24.02.1976; rather it says that the said order is illegal. 19. So far as the claim of the petitioner based on the order dated 24.02.1976 is concerned, in my considered opinion he has been able to fully establish his claim. 20. As regards the submission made by learned counsel representing the petitioner that the order dated 18.11.2004 amounts to review of the order dated 31.10.2000, I may only indicate that depending on the facts and circumstances of a particular case, there is a very thin line between the review petition and application for restoration. 21. It is true that except for the Board of Revenue under Section 201 of the Act, no other revenue court is vested with an authority or jurisdiction to review its own order, however, while observing as above, the Court cannot lose sight of the provision contained in Section 201 of the Act which permits a party to be reheard in case party concerned is able to show good cause. 22. At this juncture itself, I may also observe that mere showing of good cause for non-appearance does not suffice for invoking the provision of Section 201 of the Act for the reason that the said provision not only requires showing good cause for non-appearance of the party concerned but it further requires that the party concerned should be able to satisfy the court concerned making the order that there has been a failure of justice. Accordingly, the provision of Section 201 of the Act can be invoked only in case the party concerned is able to show good cause for its non-appearance and simultaneously he is also able to satisfy the court concerned that there has been a failure of justice. 23. Accordingly, the provision of Section 201 of the Act can be invoked only in case the party concerned is able to show good cause for its non-appearance and simultaneously he is also able to satisfy the court concerned that there has been a failure of justice. 23. In view of the aforesaid, since U.P. Power Corporation Limited has not been able to show any evidence or document in support of its claim, as such in my considered opinion, it had completely failed to establish that there had been any failure of justice by passing the order dated 31.10.2000 by the Additional Commissioner concerned. 24. At the cost of repetition, I may record that the genuineness and existence of the order dated 24.02.1976 passed by the Consolidation Officer, which is the basis of the claim of the petitioner, has not been denied or disputed and further that the declaration sought by the State of its rights in the land in question also stands defeated by dismissal of regular suit filed by the State, vide order dated 31.05.2014 passed by the court concerned. 25. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 26. The writ petition, thus, succeeds and the impugned order dated 18.11.2004, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Division, Gonda, as is contained in annexure no.1 to the writ petition, is hereby quashed. 27. However, there will be no order as to costs.