JUDGMENT : K. Ramamurthy, Member. - This is a revision under Section 38-B of the O.E.A Act against the order dated 27-7-1981 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Cuttack in O.E.A. Appeal Case No. 7/80. 2. In this case 1.02 acres as Anabadi land was leased out by U.N. Khuntia and Others in favour of Gouri Bewa, w/o Bamdev Khuntia on 7-10-1945. A case under Section 5(i) bearing No. 44 of 65-66 was started to declare this lease as invalid. The 5(i) Collector & S.D.O, Jagatsinghpur decided the case ex-parte on 5-7-1968 and cancelled the lease A review petition was filed by the petitioner and the S.D.O by his order dated 4-2-1980 accepted the lease as valid. Against this an appeal was filed by the O. Ps before the A.D.M, Cuttack who by his order dated 27-7-1981 in O. E. A. Appeal No. 7/80 set-aside the order of the S.D.O dated 4-2-1980. Therefore this revision. 3. Sri Beura, lawyer appearing for the opposite parties questioned the propriety of invoking the powers under section 38-B in this case. This power is wide and can be invoked at any time. Sri Beura tried to point out that consolidation operation is in progress in the village and, therefore, all Revenue and Civil cases are to be abated. It is not correct. Revenue cases do not abate in consolidation areas. 4. I would, therefore, first decide that there is nothing wrong in initiating this case under Section 38-B. 5. Sri B.K, Basu, lawyer appearing for the petitioners pointed out that rent receipts and unregistered Patta given in favour of the lessee are not in the record now. But they were in the record before the 5(i) Collector in Case No. 44/65-66, Collector, Cuttack may enquire as to how these documents were lost from the case record. 6. I would proceed on the basis that these rent receipts and unregistered Pattas are available in the record. 7. A part of this disputed land was acquired by Government in the irrigation Department and for this purpose compensation was paid in a Land Acquisition Case. Tahasildar, Kujanggavea possession certificate in respect of the disputed land on 25-9-1971 in favour of the lessee whose legal representative is petitioner No. 1. 8. 7. A part of this disputed land was acquired by Government in the irrigation Department and for this purpose compensation was paid in a Land Acquisition Case. Tahasildar, Kujanggavea possession certificate in respect of the disputed land on 25-9-1971 in favour of the lessee whose legal representative is petitioner No. 1. 8. Sri Beura points out that when Tahasildar gave this certificate, the S.D.O as 5(i) Collector has cancelled this lease and as such he had no right to give such certificate. I can only conclude that S.D.O 's order of 1968 was not implemented and the petitioners were in possession when Tahasildar gave the certificate. 9. Sri Basu argues that that Patta was unregistered. Registration is not necessary in my view. He questions A.D.M.'s judgment that unregistered document can be manufactured at any time. I agree with Sri Basu that fraudulent nature of the deed must be proved and cannot be presumed. 10. Sri Basu points out that in his in order the S.D.O. has accepted the Patta even though it is unregistered and not properly executed on the ground that it cannot be challenged after receipts were accepted be the Tahasildar and possession was also accepted by Tahasildar. Sri Basu relies on 35 (1969) C.L.T 552 wherein it has been held that a formal document is not necessary to create agricultural tenancy and a tenant can be inducted to an agricultural holding by a mere acceptance of rent and thereafter he can acquire the status of a tenant. Further Sri Basu points out that A.D.M. was wrong in ordering that the Revenue Inspector illegally gave rent receipts for five years. He relies on 31(1965) C.L.T. Short Note 34 Page 23 wherein it has been held that- "There is some force in the contention that in Governmental matters many things are done in routine way and some employees might have accepted rent without knowing its implications. That may be so, but the Government have to speak and act only through the agency of its own employees. Once rent is accepted certain legal consequences follow from the same and a party cannot be allowed to retreat from that, position so as to affect the rights of other party." 11. Sri Basu points out that the O. Ps claim the use of water of the tank in the disputed land. Once rent is accepted certain legal consequences follow from the same and a party cannot be allowed to retreat from that, position so as to affect the rights of other party." 11. Sri Basu points out that the O. Ps claim the use of water of the tank in the disputed land. Mere use of water according to Sri Basu does not give the O. Ps any right or ownership of this tank nor can the tank be treated as communal on this ground. He depends on 34 (1968) C.L.T. 1340 wherein it has been held that a mere use of water is not a right in property and the nature and extent of uses of water are matters to be judicially determined by the Civil Court and not by the Revenue Courts. 21 (1955) C.L.T. 382 gives this view. 12. Sri Basu contends that the A.D.M was confusing the communal character and casement right, over the tank. O. Ps may have easement right but that does not confer on them title to this tank. 13. Sri Beura points out that any lease after one year needs registration under the Transfer of Property Act. Unregistered lease deed is, therefore, not valid, Property was not really transferred under such a document. I do not agree with this view. In agricultural leases, registration is not necessary. 14. Sri Beura further points out that in this case lease is executed by sous in favour of the mother in October, 1945 two months before the O.E.A. Act came into force. Lessors are L. Rs. to the lessee now as the mother is dead. As such he says the lease has no force in law. I notice intermediaries have been leasing out lands to their lessees from time to time. On that ground alone lease cannot be considered to be valid or invalid, unless other evidence shows the fraudulent nature of the lease. 15. Sri Beura says that S.D.O reviewed his ex-parte order three years later. As A.D.M. has pointed out in his order. I do not see any reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the S.D.O. in reviewing his ex-parte order. 16. 15. Sri Beura says that S.D.O reviewed his ex-parte order three years later. As A.D.M. has pointed out in his order. I do not see any reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the S.D.O. in reviewing his ex-parte order. 16. Sri Beura points out that rent receipts produced by the petitioners were given in 1973 and 1975 when the S.D.O had cancelled the lease under Section 5(i) and before this was restored by his successor S.D.O. He therefore, says that the Revenue Inspector gave receipts on his own without any authority. 17. Sri Beura points out in this connection that the rent receipts from the ex-intermediary are not in record now. S.D.O had noticed these] receipts of the ex-intermediary at the time he give his order in 1980. I would not accept Sri Beura's plea that rent receipts were not available both before vesting from the ex-intermediary. It is therefore not correct to say that the decision of the B.D.O has been based only on receipts given by the R.I. after 1968. 18. Sri Beuria points out that the issue in this case is whether the lease is valid or not. As such Civil Court's jurisdiction is not attracted. He point out that in the R.O.R. of 1931 and Hal Settlement the villagers' right to use water to irrigate their lands is noted in the remarks column. 19. Sri Basu has rightly pointed out that the noting in the remarks column does not make this land communal but at best notes an easement right. Petitioners have not denied this right. It is for the O.Ps. to establish communal right in the Civil Court. On this noting in the Settlement Record, the land cannot be held to be communal in nature, O. Ps cannot claim any right in this tank on the basis of this noting. 20. I would, therefore, set-aside the impugned order of the A.D.M. and uphold the order of the S.D.O dated 4-2-1980. 21. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed