JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Also heard Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6. None appears for the respondent No. 5. 2. This Court vide Order dated 11.02.2021 indicated that if the respondent No. 5 remains unrepresented on the next date, the matter will be proceeded ex-parte against the said respondent. The respondent No. 5 is again not represented today despite service of notice and as such, the matter is proceeded ex-parte against her. 3. Brief facts as projected by the petitioners is that they are owners of their respective plots of land covered by Land Settlement Certificate Nos. 103201/01/604 of 2002 and 103201/01/605 of 2002. One Sh. JC Sengluaia disputed the Land Settlement Certificates of the petitioners by contending that the same encroached upon his land which was covered by LSC No. AZL.1891/1986. He therefore filed Civil Suit No. 127/2010 before the Court of Civil Judge, Aizawl. The Civil Suit on contest was dismissed by the Court below. However, during the pendency of the Civil Suit, the two LSCs were transferred in the name of the respondent No. 5 at the behest of the respondent No. 6, who is also the mother of the petitioners purportedly on the basis of Sale Deeds, which were not even signed by the original LSCs holders, i.e., the petitioners themselves. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed a joint representation on 17.07.2018 before the Director of Land Revenue & Settlement Department (respondent No. 2) praying for the cancellation of the transfer of land belonging to them to the respondent No. 5. However, the representation remain unattended and therefore, the petitioners filed WP(C) No. 38/2019 before this Court. This Court, upon having regard to the pending representation disposed of the writ petition on 28.03.2019 by directing the respondent No. 2 to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioners by way of a speaking order within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. 4. This Court, upon having regard to the pending representation disposed of the writ petition on 28.03.2019 by directing the respondent No. 2 to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioners by way of a speaking order within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. 4. Pursuant to the above direction, the respondent No. 2 vide Order dated 10.06.2019 (Annexure-3) found irregularity in the transfer of the LSCs in favour of the respondent No. 5 and accordingly directed the cancellation of the LSCs issued in favour of the respondent No. 5 with a further direction to the Settlement Officer/Asst. Settlement Officer, Aizawl District, Aizawl to immediately issue fresh LSCs in favour of the original LSC holders, i.e., the two petitioners. 5. Against the Order dated 10.06.2019, the respondent No. 5 preferred Civil Suit No. 55/2019 along with an application for stay of the Order dated 10.06.2019 vide CMA No. 318/2019 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge-III, Aizawl. The Court below initially issued a stay order on 24.07.2019 but subsequently, vide Order dated 14.11.2019, vacated the interim order. 6. Against the order of the Senior Civil Judge, the respondent No. 5 approached this Court by filing FAO No. 3/2019 but the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide Order dated 27.11.2019 and the appellant/respondent No. 5 was not given liberty for re-filing the appeal against the impugned Order, i.e., the Order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge-III. 7. Be it stated herein that following rejection of CMA No. 318/2019, the respondent No. 5 also withdrew Civil Suit No. 55/2019 on 28.11.2019. The Senior Civil Judge-III while allowing withdrawal of the suit did not give liberty to the respondent No. 5 for re-filing another suit on the same subject against the private defendants, who are the present writ petitioners and also the respondent No. 6. 8. The respondent No. 2 in the meantime, vide Communication dated 03.12.2019 informed the Settlement Officer of the Land Revenue & Settlement Department, Aizawl District, Aizawl to implement the Office Order dated 10.06.2019, but the Settlement Officer did not take any follow-up steps. 8. The respondent No. 2 in the meantime, vide Communication dated 03.12.2019 informed the Settlement Officer of the Land Revenue & Settlement Department, Aizawl District, Aizawl to implement the Office Order dated 10.06.2019, but the Settlement Officer did not take any follow-up steps. The respondent No. 5 in the meantime, again filed Civil Suit No. 112/2019 on the same subject but this time, against the official defendants only, i.e., the State of Mizoram, the Director of Land Revenue & Settlement Officer and the Settlement Officer of Land Revenue & Settlement Department. But again, the respondent No. 5 filed an application for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file afresh on the same subject matter or part of the claim. The prayer made was allowed vide Order dated 04.03.2020 by the Senior Civil Judge-I. However, while allowing withdrawal of the suit, the Court below debarred the respondent No. 5 from instituting any suits on the same subject matter against the private defendants, i.e., the two petitioners in the present case and the respondent No. 6 as was earlier directed by the Senior Civil Judge-III in Civil Suit No. 55/2019 vide Order dated 28.11.2019. 9. The petitioners thereafter, through their counsel served legal notice to the Settlement Officer/Asst. Settlement Officer, Land Revenue & Settlement Department, Aizawl asking the said authority to cancel the LSCs issued in favour of the respondent No. 5 in terms of the Order dated 10.06.2019 passed by the respondent No. 2 and to issue a fresh LSCs in favour of the petitioners. As no step was taken by the notice receiver, the petitioners approached this Court again by filing WP(C) No. 45/2020. This Court upon noticing the fact that the petitioners have come for the second time before this Court and that there was no legal proceedings that was pending to come in the way for complying the Order dated 10.06.2019 passed by the respondent No. 2, directed the petitioners to approached the respondent No. 2 with a written representation within a period of 1 (one) week seeking implementation on the said order. The petitioners were also directed to enclose a copy of the writ petition along with the affidavit in the writ petition and the respondent No. 2 was directed to consider the representation and take appropriate action within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of the representation. 10. The petitioners were also directed to enclose a copy of the writ petition along with the affidavit in the writ petition and the respondent No. 2 was directed to consider the representation and take appropriate action within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of the representation. 10. When the petitioners approached the respondent No. 2 with their representation as was directed by this Court, they were informed that an Order dated 11.06.2020, recalling the earlier Order dated 10.06.2019 was already passed by the respondent No. 2. By the said order, it was directed that status quo regarding the transfer of land in favour of the respondent No. 5 and the ownership of the land in her favour would remain. Aggrieved with the said order, the petitioners are once again before this Court for the third time through the instant writ petition. 11. Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned Order dated 11.06.2020 is in clear violation of Section 93 of the Mizoram Land Revenue Act, 2013 (Act of 2013). Referring to the said Section, the learned counsel submits that the rectification of any mistake, which is apparent from the record can be reviewed by the Revenue Officer defined under Section 7 either on his own motion or on the application subject to the application for review having been filed within 90 days from the date of the order. This apart, Section 93 provides for the outer limit of 180 days for reviewing or amending any order. He submits that since the impugned order passed affects the right between the private persons, the review application, if any, has to be filed by the respondent no. 5 within 90 days or at the most within 180 days. Although the petitioners are not aware of the filing of application by the respondent No. 5, the State respondents in their counter affidavit have annexed a review application purportedly filed by the respondent No. 5, which is dated 04.03.2020. Since the order for cancellation of the LSC issued in favour of the respondent No. 5 was passed by the respondent No. 2 on 10.06.2019, the review application was filed after about 268 days or 9 (nine) months. As such, the review application could not have been entertained in violation of Section 93 of the Act of 2013. 12. Since the order for cancellation of the LSC issued in favour of the respondent No. 5 was passed by the respondent No. 2 on 10.06.2019, the review application was filed after about 268 days or 9 (nine) months. As such, the review application could not have been entertained in violation of Section 93 of the Act of 2013. 12. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent No. 2 after passing the Order dated 10.06.2019 has become functus officio and the said order could not have been revisited by the said authority in the manner it has been done. By referring to the Order dated 10.06.2019, the learned counsel also submits that the respondent No. 2 upon considering the material facts on record came to a finding that the so called Sale Deeds were not signed by the respective land owners and which in turn, indicated that the land owners did not personally submitted an application for mutation in the prescribed form to the Settlement Officer/Asst. Settlement Officer. Upon noticing such misrepresentation of facts, the mutation done in favour of the respondent No. 5 was directed to be cancelled and the two LSCs restored to the petitioners. As such, the impugned Order dated 11.06.2020 cannot be sustained and that the respondent authorities should be directed to implement the Order dated 10.06.2019. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relies upon the following authorities:- (i) Kalabharati Advertising Vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 437 . (ii) State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. S.N. Goyal (2008) 8 SCC 92 (iii) Judgment & Order dated 02.11.2012 passed by this Court in RFA No. 25 & 34 of 2011 (Mr. Sanglura Sailo (L) R/b Smt. Lalthlamuani Vs. Smt. C. Lalrampari). 13. Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate on the other hand by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 on 17.03.2021 submits that the earlier Order dated 10.06.2019 passed by the respondent No. 2 has to be reviewed due to the fact that the same was passed without giving an opportunity to the respondent No. 5. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate on the other hand by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 on 17.03.2021 submits that the earlier Order dated 10.06.2019 passed by the respondent No. 2 has to be reviewed due to the fact that the same was passed without giving an opportunity to the respondent No. 5. In fact, the two LSCs were handed over to the respondent No. 5 by the respondent No. 6 and an application for mutation was submitted to the concerned authority, which was duly filed by the land owners in 2012, which is mentioned before the Act of 2013 came into existence. Moreover, the application in the prescribed form was duly singed by the land owners and was submitted to the concerned officer without any objection being raised and therefore, in supersession of the earlier Order dated 10.06.2019, the Order dated 11.06.2020 was issued by the respondent No. 2 directing that status quo be maintained in respect of the LSC mutated in favour of the respondent No. 5. The learned Government Advocate also submits that even otherwise, there are disputed questions of facts involved and therefore, the dispute has to be adjudicated before the appropriate forum and not before the High Court. 14. Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 submits that the respondent No. 6 realizing that the petitioners were not agreeable to the transfer of land in favour of the respondent No. 5, tried to give back the amount of Rs. 40 Lakhs received from the respondent No. 5 for the two plots of land but the respondent No. 5 refused to accept the same. She further submits that from a perusal of the impugned Order dated 11.06.2020, it cannot be said that the respondent No. 5 had indeed filed a review application before the respondent No. 2, since nothing is mentioned about review application being filed by the respondent No. 5. Therefore, she submits that the application for review said to have been filed by the respondent No. 5 by the State respondents only appears to be an afterthought. Therefore, she submits that the application for review said to have been filed by the respondent No. 5 by the State respondents only appears to be an afterthought. By further, referring to the application for transfer of ownership of LSC said to have been submitted by the petitioners, the learned counsel submits that the age of the petitioner No. 2 has been shown as 65 years whereas, the respondent No. 2 was born in the year 1977. Therefore, this would also go to show that the application has not been initiated and submitted by the petitioner No. 2 or the petitioners. 15. The learned counsel by referring to the order passed by this Court on 17.06.2020 in WP(C) No. 45/2020 submits that this Court had directed the petitioners to approach the respondent No. 2 for implementing the earlier order passed on 10.06.2019, but the respondent No. 2 instead has passed a fresh order, that too by recalling the earlier Order dated 10.06.2019. Under the circumstances, the learned counsel submits that the respondent No. 6 has no other option but to support the case of the petitioners. 16. I have heard the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record including the authorities relied upon. 17. The issue to be decided from the projection made by the petitioners is as to whether the impugned Order dated 11.06.2020 (Annexure-11) can be sustained having regard to the provisions of the Act of 2013. As already noticed, the respondent No. 2 vide Order dated 10.06.2019 upon considering the materials available on record have come to the conclusion that the Sale Deed (Hmun Inleina Lehkha) was not signed by the respective land holders and therefore, it was obvious that the land holders did not personally submit an application for mutation in the prescribed form to the Settlement Officer/Asst. Settlement Officer. Accordingly, the LSCs issued in favour of the respondent No. 5 was directed to be cancelled while the Settlement Officer/Asst. Settlement Officer was directed to issue fresh LSCs in favour of the petitioners. Although attempts were made by the respondent No. 5 to challenge the said Order dated 10.06.2019 before the Civil Court and before this Court through FAO No. 3/2019 but the same was unsuccessful. Settlement Officer was directed to issue fresh LSCs in favour of the petitioners. Although attempts were made by the respondent No. 5 to challenge the said Order dated 10.06.2019 before the Civil Court and before this Court through FAO No. 3/2019 but the same was unsuccessful. Therefore, the Order dated 10.06.2019 remains as it is, until the respondent No. 2 vide the impugned Order dated 11.06.2020 recalled the earlier order purportedly in exercise of review jurisdiction. Section 93 of the Act of 2013 provides for rectification of mistake by review. The same may be abstracted here under for ready perusal:- “93. Rectification of mistake by review With a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, a Revenue Officer referred to in section 7 may amend any order passed under the provisions of this Act, either on his own motion or on the application of any party interested subject to the following conditions; (1) No order affecting any question of right between private persons shall be reviewed except on the application of a party to the proceedings or except after notice to the other party, and no application for review of such order shall be entertained unless it is made within ninety days from the date of the order. (2) An order which has been a subject or appeal or on revision shall not be reviewed or amended by any officer subordinate to the appellate or revision authority. Provided that no order shall be reviewed or amended after expiry of one-hundred eighty days in which the order sought to be amended was passed.” 18. From a perusal of the above abstract, it may be seen that the rectification of the mistake apparent from the record can be done by the Revenue Officer either on his own motion or on the application of the party interested subject to the application for review having been filed within 90 days from the date of the order in respect of such orders, which effect the rights between private parties. The said provision also provides that review or amendment cannot be done by an Officer Subordinate to the appellate or revision authority and lastly, no order can be reviewed or amended after the expiry of 180 days from the date in which the order sought to be reviewed or amended was passed. 19. The said provision also provides that review or amendment cannot be done by an Officer Subordinate to the appellate or revision authority and lastly, no order can be reviewed or amended after the expiry of 180 days from the date in which the order sought to be reviewed or amended was passed. 19. From the application for review filed by the respondent No. 5, which is annexed to the counter affidavit of the State respondents as Annexure-1, it is seen that the same was filed on 04.03.2020 whereas, the order sought to be reviewed was passed on 10.06.2019. Therefore, it is seen that the application for review admittedly was filed after 268 days, which is clearly beyond the prescribed time for rectifying of mistake by review provided by Section 93 of the Act of 2013. 20. Although the learned Government Advocate has contended that the mutation in favour of the respondent No. 5 was done in the year 2012 and much prior to the Act of 2013 came into existence, what we are concerned here is with regard to the Order dated 10.06.2019 being reviewed by the same authority beyond the prescribed period stipulated by Section 93 of the Act of 2013. The Apex Court in the case of Kalabharati Advertising Vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Ors. (Supra) while considering the question posed before it as to whether the authority concerned can recall an order passed earlier without there being any provision provided in that regard came to the conclusion in the facts of that case that it was a settled proposition that unless the statute/rules so permit, the review application cannot be maintainable in case of judicial/quasi-judicial orders. In the absence of any provision in the Act granting an expressed power of review, it is manifest that a review could not be made and the order in review, if passed, is ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction. The Apex Court by further referring to its earlier decisions also observed that review is a creation of statute and that the jurisdiction of review can be derived only from the statute and thus, any order of review in the absence of any statutory provision for the same is a nullity, being without jurisdiction. 21. The Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. 21. The Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. S.N. Goyal (Supra) in the content of the facts involved in that case held that a quasi-judicial authority will become functus officio only when its order is pronounced, or published/notified or communicated to the party concerned. But when an order is made in an office noting in a file but is not pronounced, published or communicated, nothing prevents the authority from correcting it or altering it for valid reasons. Applying the ratio to the present case, it may be seen that the Order dated 10.06.2019 was not only issued by the respondent No. 2 with a copy forwarded to the parties as well as the Settlement Officer/Asst. Settlement Officer, Aizawl District, Aizawl for information and necessary action but the same was also put to challenge unsuccessfully on more than one occasion before the Civil Court. As such, going by the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, the respondent No. 2 upon passing the Order dated 10.06.2019 and that too, pursuant to the disposal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, i.e., WP(C) No. 38/2019 on 28.03.2019, cannot have the authority to re-open the case to pass the impugned Order dated 11.06.2020. As such, the impugned Order dated 11.06.2020 (Annexure-11) is found to be unsustainable and is hereby set aside. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 shall now implement the Order dated 10.06.2019 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 22. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.