JUDGMENT : 1. This case is on a motion of the Land Reforms Commissioner u/s 59(2) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act to revise the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Ganjam passed on 16 November 1976 in his Case O. L. R. Revision No. 1 of 1975. 2. A number of applications were filed u/s 4(2) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act among which was one by Niladri Sahoo, Gopinath Panda and Hadu Patra. These three bad claimed that they were temporary lessees in cultivating possession of 17.38 acres in plots 719, 915, 804, 805, 297, 266 and 957. The Revenue Officer, Surada recognised them as raiyats in respect of 11.46 acres in plot No. 719, but rejected their claim in respect of the other lands. Recognition in respect of plot 719 was set aside in appeal. A revision taken to the Additional District Magistrate failed with the observation that Any person claiming settlement of land with raiyati right under the provisions (of Sub-section (2) of Section 4) of the O. L. R. Act must satisfy two basic conditions that he was in possession of the disputed lands on the date of vesting and was in personal cultivation of the said lands on the date the O. L. R. Act came into force..... It is an admitted fact that the Appellants put forth their claim before the O. E. A. Act Collector for the settlement of the land on the ground that they were tenants under the ex-intermediary and in possession of the disputed lands. Their claims were rejected not only by the O. E. A. Act Collector, but also by the appellate Court in O. E. A. Appeal No. 21 of 1967. The facts decided by the appellate Court cannot be reagitated in a subsequent proceeding of civil nature. 3. The motion is on the basis of a petition filed before the learned Land Reforms Commissioner. It is not the intention of Sub-section (2) of Section 59 that parties to proceedings who have opportunities of revision under Sub-section (1) of Section 59 will secure a further revision by Board of Revenue through the device of filing a petition before the Collector of the district or the Land Reforms Commissioner. There will be instances where parties may not be aggrieved but there may nevertheless be omissions or irregularities in proceedings which detract from the objective of land reforms. There will be instances where parties may not be aggrieved but there may nevertheless be omissions or irregularities in proceedings which detract from the objective of land reforms. Usually, such omissions and irregularities will come to notice during the course of inspection and supervision of the work of Land Reforms by the Land Reforms Commissioner and the Collectors of Districts. It is to deal with such omissions and irregularities that provision has been made for revision in the manner stipulated in Sub-section (2) of Section 59. Motions under that Sub-section may also be necessary in order to secure uniformity in the interpretation and application of the law by bringing to the notice of the Board of Revenue material differences between he decisions of the different Revenue Divisional Commissioners; 4. Motions for revision must clearly and specifically state what the omissions or irregularities in the proceedings before the other authorities are and what specific point of law, if any, needs to be decided by the Board of Revenue. 5. I have perused the records and heard the parties, including the intervenors Sam Badati and seven others, whose writ petition concerning the same lands is sub judice in O.J.C. 327 of 1977. On the fact of cultivating possession and the terms on which the lands were held there is nothing on the records for the Board of Revenue to differ with the appreciation of the lower revenue authorities. It is not enough if the lands are in personal cultivation in vested estates but they must not be hit by the proviso to Clause (h) of Section 4(1) which reads subject to the provision of Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4), persons who are temporary lessees in personal cultivation of lands in the vested estates held under Government for agricultural purpose" persons who are in personal cultivation of such lands held either mediately or immediately under such temporary lessees and the successor-in-interet of any such persons: Provided that nothing in the clause shall apply to char or diara lands or lands held under the custom of Utabandi or similar other custom. 6. The Amendment Act 29 of 1976, gave retrospective effect to this clause. 6. The Amendment Act 29 of 1976, gave retrospective effect to this clause. It was one of the objectives of the amendment to place it beyond all doubt that the incidence of personal cultivation of his lands either as a temporary lessee or as a person mediately or immediately under a temporary lessee is related to the date of vesting of the estate and not to the date of commencement of the Orissa and Reforms Act. The interpretation of the clause is given in the decision of the Board of Revenue in the case of Gandharba Maharana v. Mayadhar Das (1976) 42 C.L.T. 1176. 7. It has not been shown that Niladri Sahoo and the two others would qualify to be raiyats in terms of Clause (h). There is therefore no justification for the Board of Revenue to revise the order of the learned Additional District Magistrate. Revision disallowed. Final Result : Allowed