JUDGMENT : C. Jayachandran, J. W.P.(C) No.40862/2025, the petitioner approached this Court challenging Ext.P13 notice, specifically on the ground that the 2 nd respondent/Special Tahsildar (L.R.) has no power to review his earlier Order granting Patta to the petitioner. On such premise Ext.P13 notice is incompetent and without jurisdiction, is the argument advanced. 2. The bare minimum facts, which are liable to be taken stock of, are as follows: On an application preferred by petitioner's husband, a Patta was issued by the 2 nd respondent in respect of landed property having an extent of 2.6245 hectares. The same was sought to be recalled at the instance of the 3 rd respondent, represented by his power holder, the 4 th respondent herein. The specific reason urged in the application to recall the Patta issued in favour of the petitioner's husband is that he had perpetrated fraud in obtaining the Patta. Petitioner's husband is no more, and the petitioner is accordingly agitating the rights flowing from the Patta. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2 nd respondent/Special Tahsildar (L.R.) has no power to review his own Order, granting Patta to the petitioner. A judgment of a learned Single Judge in Chandrasekharan v. Jennat [1981 KHC 426] is pressed into service on this point. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent would submit that, in cases where fraud is perpetrated, every authority has the inherent power to review/recall an Order obtained by playing fraud. In support of the above proposition, learned counsel would rely on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Bank v. M/s.Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. [1996 KHC 932] , wherein it is held in paragraph no.20 that Constitutional, Statutory or Administrative authorities possess the power to recall their judgments or Orders, if they are obtained by fraud, since fraud and justice never dwell together. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent, this Court finds that the contention that the 2 nd respondent cannot review or recall the Order granting Patta cannot stand the test of law. This is for the reason that the said Order is sought to be recalled specifically on the premise that, fraud is perpetrated by the petitioner's husband in obtaining the said Patta. This is for the reason that the said Order is sought to be recalled specifically on the premise that, fraud is perpetrated by the petitioner's husband in obtaining the said Patta. The question as to whether fraud has been perpetrated or not, is a matter to be decided by the 2 nd respondent Tribunal. Unless and until the Tribunal arrives at a finding that there was no fraud perpetrated, the present proposition of absence of power to review/recall cannot stand. 6. In the circumstances, W.P.(C) No.40862/2025 will stand dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an application has been filed before the 2 nd respondent to first consider the maintainability of the petition preferred by the 3 rd respondent for recalling the Order. The same having been decided by this Court in these proceedings cannot stand anymore. In the circumstances, there will be direction to the 2 nd respondent to consider the 3 rd respondent's application for recalling the Order granting Patta to the petitioner, expeditiously, in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Either the petitioner, or the 3 rd respondent, will produce a copy of the judgment before the 2 nd respondent Tribunal, for compliance. 7. Inasmuch as a prayer for expeditious consideration of the application preferred by the 3 rd respondent has already been directed, no separate Orders are required in W.P.(C) No.30969/2025. These Writ Petitions are disposed of, as above.