State Government Cannot Review Its Own Revisional Orders Under Section 41(3): Allahabad High Court Affirms Legal Bar on Successive Reviews

“There is no jurisdiction vested in the State Government to entertain review applications against its own revisional orders” – Justice Subhash Vidyarthi draws clear line on finality of State's revisional powers

In a significant pronouncement impacting the exercise of administrative and quasi-judicial powers by the State Government under urban planning laws, the Allahabad High Court has categorically ruled that the revisional authority under Section 41(3) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, has no power to review its own decisions.

Justice Subhash Vidyarthi struck down two successive review orders passed by the State Government on May 29, 2024, and November 7, 2024, observing that the absence of statutory review power renders such orders without jurisdiction.

“No Statutory Power to Review Means Review Orders Are Without Jurisdiction”: High Court Emphasises Finality of Revisional Authority’s Orders

In an unambiguous ruling, the Court held:

“I find force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the revisional authority has no power to review its orders.”

While Section 41(3) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 empowers the State Government to call for the record of any case to examine the legality or propriety of an order passed by a Development Authority or its Chairman, it does not confer any power of review of such revisional decisions.

The High Court clarified that once a revision is decided, the revisional authority becomes functus officio, and cannot entertain further requests for modification, clarification, or reconsideration, even if filed by the authority itself.

GNIDA’s Own Review Applications Backfire, but Court Enforces Legal Limits

The controversy arose from a dispute between Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) and M/s Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd., a builder allotted land for a township project in 2010. After the State Government granted zero period benefits and other reliefs in its revisional order dated 19.10.2023, GNIDA, dissatisfied, filed two successive review applications, alleging factual and legal errors in the original revision.

The first review resulted in partial modification — revoking one zero period relief on the ground that no court stay was in operation. The second review application, however, was mostly declined. GNIDA then approached the High Court in writ jurisdiction, not only challenging the original revision but also arguing for the first time that the State Government had no authority to review its own orders.

Although the Court criticised GNIDA for raising jurisdictional objections belatedly, it ultimately agreed that lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent or acquiescence:

“The opposite party no.2 has also not opposed the submission… that the revisional authority has no power to review its orders… I find merit in the contention and accordingly the review orders dated 29.05.2024 and 07.11.2024 are liable to be set aside.”

Judicial Consistency: High Court Aligns With Earlier Precedents

Referring to its own earlier Division Bench ruling in M/s Eco Green Build Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., and citing settled principles of administrative law, the Court reinforced that review is a creature of statute, and cannot be assumed or implied unless expressly provided.

The decision also distinguishes between the wide revisional powers conferred under Section 41(3) and the non-existent power to reopen such orders, noting that while the State may correct illegalities or examine the propriety of orders passed by development authorities, it must do so once, and not indefinitely.

The ruling is expected to have a major bearing on disputes between development authorities and builders across Uttar Pradesh. It prevents the misuse of revisional jurisdiction by either side to keep reopening decided matters and reinforces the principle of finality in administrative adjudication.

It also ensures that legal certainty prevails in high-stakes matters such as urban land allotments, lease calculations, and project approvals, where both builders and authorities often seek post-facto adjustments through revisional or review mechanisms.

Date of Decision: February 9, 2026