Judgement R. N. MISRA, C. J. :- This writ application calls in question the revisional order of the Revenue Divisional Commissioner rendered under S.59 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. 2. Petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act with its registered office at Jeypore in the district of Koraput. It has also a factory located there. Though known as Sugar Company, petitioner apart from manufacturing sugar has also switched over to other bussiness including mining. When the ceiling proceeding came up for consideration, petitioner laid claim to allotment of 631.15 acres of land to it by contending that the lands as per particulars below were necessary for it :- (i) Land required for housing accommodation of employees ...... Ac. 70.00 ...... Ac. 41.00 (iii) Land required for sugar-cane research ...... Ac. 70.00 (iv) Land required for dumping of slag materials ..... Ac.163.40 (v) Land for proposed Textile Mill ...... Ac. 286.75 Total ..... Ac. 631.15 (ii) Land required for extension of factory premises and storage It may be stated that the petitioner owned 789.66 acres (712 acres as stated by the Company) and out of it 110.14 acres were conceded and for the remaining lands as indicated above, the Company came forward with the claim. The Revenue Officer did not accept the excess claim on the five heads indicated above. In appeal, the appellate authority while upholding the direction of the Revenue Officer conceded ten standard acres of land to the petitioner holding that it was a person within the definition of Sec.37-A of the Land Reforms Act. The order of the appellate authority conceding ten standard acres became final in the absence of any revision on behalf of the State. 3. Petitioner challenged the appellate order in a revision and reiterated its claims. The revisional authority to deal with the claims of the petitioner concentrated upon the provisions of S.8 of the Land Reforms Act which require a raiyat not to put lands to non-agricultural use and make a raiyat liable for eviction in the event of such change in the use. That certainly was not a relevant consideration for examining the petitioner s claim. What was necessary for consideration was whether under the law. Petitioner was entitled to retain these lands under different provisions of the statute. We do not find any consideration of this aspect by the Commissioner. That certainly was not a relevant consideration for examining the petitioner s claim. What was necessary for consideration was whether under the law. Petitioner was entitled to retain these lands under different provisions of the statute. We do not find any consideration of this aspect by the Commissioner. Though the appellate order had become final in respect of concession of ten standard acres to the petitioner and there was no revision before the Commissioner, he directed deletion of the ten standard acres in terms of the appellate order. It has already been held by us in the case of Bhanuganga Tribhuban Deb v. Tahasildar-cum- Revenue Officer, Sambalpur, (1982) 53 Cut LT 1 : (AIR 1982 Orissa 83) that the scheme under the Act is such that in the absence of a revision by the aggrieved party, every order must be taken to be final and it would not be open for an appellate or a revisional authority to make alterations in final orders while dealing with the appeal or revision of the adversary. 4. We are of the view that the revisional order must be vacated and the entire revision must be remanded for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. We accordingly allow the writ application, vacate the revisional order and direct redisposal of the revision in accordance with law. We make no order as to costs. BEHERA, J. :- I agree. Petition allowed.