JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - The application under Article 220 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari and two civil revisions are directed against a common order of the Member, Board of Revenue passed in an appeal u/s 13(2) of the Orissa Merged Territories (Village offices Abolition) Act, 1963. 2. The two revisions have been filed u/s 13 Sub-Section 3 (a) of the Act. The Petitioner, who has filed one of the revisions has also filed this writ application for the same relief. 3. The office of Ganju of village Tarkera and Salangbahal in Raibaga P. S. within the district of Sundargarh having been abolished, steps were taken u/s 5 of the Act for setting the Bhogra lands with the appropriate persons. The ancestors of Khyamasila ' Khyamanidhi Raut, who is Petitioner in civil revision No. 217 of 1977 and w bo is also opp. party No. 3 in,this writ petition were Ganjus, while Kalandi Behera, Petitioner in this writ application and also Petitioner in Civil Revision No. 179 of J 977, claimed to be the Sikimi Ganju. Ac.50.21 of Bhogra lands were attached to the village office. Ac. 2. 22 thereof had been acquired for the Mandira Dam. Out of the remaining 47.99 dec. Ac. 40.70 dec. were available for settlement. The disputes have been continuing since more than a decade relating to settlement of these lands between the Ganju and the Sikimi Ganju. In Civil Revision No. 217 of 1973 disposed of on 7-11-1974, it has already been concluded that the Ganju and Sikimi Ganju were holders of village office and were entitled to the settlement of Bhogra lands on the basis of actual possession. This Court had directed the Board of Revenue to enquire into the matter finally on the materials available on record and conclude the question. The Board of Revenue found that Khyamasila was in possession of A. 0. 39 decimals of land and with regard to the other lands it has held. I would accordingly have decided that the lands should be settled in accordance with the Draft Jambandi as published on 15 September 1970 but for the fact that the S. C. has held in Maguni Charan Dwivedi Vs. 39 decimals of land and with regard to the other lands it has held. I would accordingly have decided that the lands should be settled in accordance with the Draft Jambandi as published on 15 September 1970 but for the fact that the S. C. has held in Maguni Charan Dwivedi Vs. State of Orissa and Another, that it is necessary not only for cosharers and tenants to be in separate and actual cultivating possession but also for the holder of the village office to be in separate and actual cultivating possession. The finding in the case before me, is that the lands were in the joint cultivating possession of Kalindi Behera. Dhobei Behera and Gridhari Behera, The narration in XL C. L T. 428 brings out that Dhobei Behera was in possession of the lands which reinforces the facts that the possession of Kalindi was not separate. Therefore the lands cannot be settled with Kalindi Behera and must remain vested in Government free from all encumbrances. Similarly Kalindi Behera and Labanya Routiani cannot be settled with 0.44 acres which were found to be in their joint cultivating possession. The direction that the lands must remain vested in the State free from all encumbrances has been challenged by both the claimants. 4. The Member, Board of Revenue, has obviously fallen into a total misconception about the ratio laid down in Maguni Dwivedi's case1. The Supreme Court laid down that in order to be entitled to settlement under the Act, the cosharers had to establish actual and separate cultivating possession. The decision nowhere lays down that if they were in actual joint possession, the settlement would not be granted. On the finding that the lands have been in joint possession, the property is available for settlement and the direction for vesting in the State is fully unwarranted. Learned Government Advocate concedes that there has been an error in the decision of the Board of Revenue with reference to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court and confusion has led to an erroneous conclusion. At the hearing of this application, Kalandi was present in Court and with a view to find peace between the two claimants have agreed before us that he may be settled with 22.70 acres of land and the remaining 18 acres should go to Khyamasila ' Khyamanidhi who was the Ganju of the villages. At the hearing of this application, Kalandi was present in Court and with a view to find peace between the two claimants have agreed before us that he may be settled with 22.70 acres of land and the remaining 18 acres should go to Khyamasila ' Khyamanidhi who was the Ganju of the villages. We direct the local Tahasildar to effect an appropriate settlement, of the land keeping the extent indicated above in view, on the basis of the quality of the lands. The settlement may be made within 3 months from now in accordance with law and patta as provided by the Rules be issued. The decision of the Board of Revenue is quashed and the Revenue Officer is directed to give effect to the decision herein. The writ application and the two revisions are partly allowed. No costs. P.K. Mohanti, J. I agree. Revision partly allowed. Final Result : Allowed