JUDGMENT : B.K. Patra, J. - The dispute in this petition relates to the lands covered by Khata No. 1022 and Khata No. 1024 of mouza Hantak and described morefully in Schedules A and B appended to the petition. The Petitioner No. 1, deity, was the intermediary in respect of the Touzi appertaining to the disputed properties. Khata No. 1022 consists of 3 plots, plot Nos. 455, 459 and 1194 with a total area of 4.20 acres. Sidhi Jena and Budhi Jena were admittedly the recorded Dhulibhag tenants in respect of these properties. Sidhi's widow is Sulav and his son is Gurubari. After the death of Sidhi, his widow Sulav, and his brother Budhi executed a registered said deed in favour of the intermediary in respect of the properties covered by Khata No. 1022 (Annexure-13). So far as the B schedule properties are concerned, Maga Sahu and Akheda Sahu were the recorded Sanja tenants under the intermediary, the deity. This Khata consists of two plots, plot Nos. 501 and 618 with a total area of 2.24 acres. To recover arrears of rent the deity brought a rent suit against Maga Sahu and Akheda Sahu, and in execution of the decree obtained therein the properties were brought to sale and purchased by the deity. The sale certificate (Annexure-14) was also obtained. It is the case of the deity that the lands covered by Khata No. 1024 were taken possession of by it amicably from the Sanja tenants. On 13-4-1961 the intermediary interest of Petitioner No. 1 vested in the State. There is no dispute that thereafter within the time prescribed an application u/s 7 read with Section 8-A of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act was filed on behalf of the deity for settlement of the lands covered by Khata Nos. 1022 and 1024 on the averment that the deity was in possession of those properties on the date of vesting. There was due publication of the notice, and objections were filed one by Gurubari (opp. party No. 4) claiming 1.49 acres of land out of Khata No. 1022 and the other by Maga Sahu and Akheda Sahu (opposite party Nos. 5 and 6) claiming' all the lands covered by Khata No. 1024. There was due publication of the notice, and objections were filed one by Gurubari (opp. party No. 4) claiming 1.49 acres of land out of Khata No. 1022 and the other by Maga Sahu and Akheda Sahu (opposite party Nos. 5 and 6) claiming' all the lands covered by Khata No. 1024. The case of Gurucari is that long before Sulav and Budhi executed the sale deed dated 20-8-1951 in favour of the deity there was a partition in the family and that in the said partition 1.49 acres of land morefully described in Annexure-2, the partition deed, had been allotted to his share, and that ever since then he has been in possession of these 1.49 acres of land. Opposite party Nos. 5 and 6 do not question the correctness of the averment made by the Petitioner No. 1 regarding the purchase of Khata No. 1024 in Court auction by the Petitioner No. 1, but they contend that the deity had never taken possession of these properties either through Court or otherwise and that the objectors continued to remain in possession thereof, and were in possession by the time the vesting took place. 3. The Tahasildar dismissed the petition filed by the deity entirely relying on a report of enquiry submitted by the Kanungo who stated in his report that on the date he made the enquiry, which admittedly was a long time after the vesting, the recorded Dhulibhag tenants in respect of the lands covered by Khata No. 1022 and the Sanja tenants in respect of the lands covered by Khata No. 1024 were in possession. Apart from this enquiry report, neither party appears to have let in any other evidence. Relying on the enquiry report, the Tahasildar dismissed the deity's application. This order of the Tahasildar was upheld in appeal by the Additional District Magistrate. 4. Against this appellate order the Petitioner No. 1 filed a second appeal before the Member, Board of Revenue. The Board set aside the orders passed by the Tahasildar and of the first appellate Court, and remanded the case to the Tahasildar for fresh disposal in the light of observations made in the judgment. The Tahasildar commenced fresh enquiry. 4. Against this appellate order the Petitioner No. 1 filed a second appeal before the Member, Board of Revenue. The Board set aside the orders passed by the Tahasildar and of the first appellate Court, and remanded the case to the Tahasildar for fresh disposal in the light of observations made in the judgment. The Tahasildar commenced fresh enquiry. One witness on behalf of the deity was examined and cross-examined before him, and before other witnesses could be examined an objection was taken that no second appeal was maintainable before the Member, Board of Revenue and consequently the order of remand passed by the Board of Revenue was without jurisdiction, and therefore no further enquiry by the Tahasildar was competent. The objection that the Member, Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal was a valid one having regard to the decision of this Court reported in Mahant Sri Bhakti Charan Das Vs. Satyen Kumar Raichoudhury and Another, There can, therefore be no doubt that the order of remand passed by the Board of Revenue was without jurisdiction and consequently the Tahasildar had no jurisdiction to make a fresh enquiry. 5. The position, therefore, is that the claim made u/s 7 of the Estates Abolition Act by the Petitioner No. 1 had been dismissed both by the Tahasildar and the first appellate Court. The question is whether there is any material to warrant interference in this writ proceeding. 6. It is well settled that this Court cannot reappraise the evidence adduced before the trial Court. One of the circumstances under which interference is justified is where there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Such an error is discernible in the order passed by the Courts below. The total area of the lands covered by Khata No. 1022 is 4.20 acres. The only objection filed in respect of that Khata is by Gurubari who claimed only 1.49 acres of land alleged to have fallen to his share in partition and more fully described in his objection petition (at page 11 of the lower Court records). Consequently, so far as the balance of 2.71 acres of land covered by Khata No. 1022 is concerned, there is no objection to the 'Petitioner's claim. Consequently, so far as the balance of 2.71 acres of land covered by Khata No. 1022 is concerned, there is no objection to the 'Petitioner's claim. The report of enquiry submitted by the Kanungo cannot defeat the Petitioner's claim because he himself states therein that at the time of his enquiry on 18-11-1964 he found that the lands were in possession of the Sthitiban tenants. The material date in an enquiry u/s 8-A is the date of vesting. The point to be considered is whether on the date of vesting the intermediary was in possession of the lands in respect of which it filed a claim u/s 7. There is nothing in the Kanungo's report to show that the Petitioner deity was not in possession of the 2.71 acres of land by the date of vesting. The claim of the Petitioner, in so far as it relates to 2.71 acres of land in Khata No. 1022, must, therefore, be allowed. 7. In respect of Khata No. 1024, the entire claim made by the Petitioner had been objected to by opposite party Nos. 5 and 6. In the circumstances the onus was on the Petitioner to establish before the Collector that by the time of vesting it was in possession of the lands claimed. No such evidence was adduced. In the circumstances the Courts below were justified in rejecting its claim in respect of Khata No. 1024. 8. In the result, we would allow this application in part. The proper order that should have been passed by the Courts below is to allow the Petitioner's application so far as it relates to Khata No. 1022 excluding therefrom the lands claimed by Gurubari (opposite party No. 4), and reject its claim in respect of the balance. We would, therefore, direct the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order to the extent indicated above. The record be sent down to the Tahasildar (opposite party no 2) for passing an order in accordance with law and in the light of observations made above. There will be no order as to costs. S. Acharya J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Allowed