JUDGMENT : K. Ramamurthy, Member. - This is a suo motu revision under Section 59(2) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act moved by Collector. Kalahandi against the order dated 1-9-75 of Revenue Officer, Jaipatna in O.L.R. (Ceiling) Case No. 154/74, 2. Revenue Officer stated this case suo motu on 30-12-1974. He published the Draft Statement showing the total land in two villages to be 90.99 acres. After allowing 10 standard acres, the Draft Statement declared 18.41 standard acres as surplus. 3. Land-holder objected it on years 18-3-1975 saying that he has two major sons living separately since 6 to 8 years Revenue Officer deputed an Amin who reported on 31-8-1975 that the land-holder had purchased 3.40 acres of land by Registered Sale deed in 1967. This has to he added to the total lands. His first son was cultivating 22.71 acres. One brother of the O.P. was cultivating 4.95 acres and another brother 1.60 acres. One son of one brother was cultivating 11.47 acres. Revenue Officer accepted this and excluded 40.34 acres from the total land, holding that all these persons were living separately before the appointed date. He therefore, found the land-holder had no surplus thereafter taking into account the number of the family members as 7 and the Revenue Officer dropped the case by his order dated 1-9-1975. 4. Additional Standing Counsel points out the following irregularities: (a) O.P. was in cultivation possession of 6.55 acres belonging to his brother; and (b) Similarly 4.95 acres belonging to O.P. is in possession of the same brother. 5. These two things have not been taken into account by the Revenue Officer. After deducting this, the O.P. would really have 74.31 acres. 6. There is no memorandum of the spot enquiry of the Revenue Officer. Place and date of examination of two witnesses are not clear. 7. In the statement of Padman Kata it was originally recorded that the eldest son of the O.P. used to live with his father. But subsequently the word 'father' was scored through and the words 'wife separately' have been inserted, Similarly in the statement of ether witness the word 'father' has been scored through and the word 'separately' has been inserted. The age of one son was reported to be 21. The figure 1' was changed to 7 making the age to 27 instead of 21. 8. The age of one son was reported to be 21. The figure 1' was changed to 7 making the age to 27 instead of 21. 8. The witness Padman Kata says that one son is married about 4 or 5 years age. The date is not clear. Even if it relates to August, 75, the son was not married on the appointed date. 9. In the objection petition of March, 75 O. P. stated that the age of his eldest son was 20 years. Therefore, he was not major on the appointed date. 10. The objection petition was silent about the marriage of the eldest son before the appointed date. 11. Sarpanch has given a certificate in May, 75 that one son is married by then. But he does not say anything about separation from the father before the appointed date. 12. Revenue Officer had not enquired into the classification of the land. 13. Acceptance of amicable family settlement without any documentary evidence is irregular. 14. Additional Standing Counsel, therefore, suggests that the case may be remanded for fresh enquiry. 15. Sri A.B. Misra appearing for the O.Ps argues that 6.55 acres is shown to be in possession of one brother (O. P. 5) but not the O. P. 1. Therefore, O P. 1 is neither the owner nor in possession of this land. Amin report of 1976 shows that son was major, married and separate about 7 or 8 years age. 16. He further points out that Revenue Officer has signed the corrections as per the evidence recorded by him. 17. He further says that in the objection petition the age of the sons is noted by mistake. The objection petition also shows that two sons have one wife each. 18. Sri A.B. Misra further argues elaborately that in revision one should not go by the erroneous appreciation of evidence by the lower court. He quoted various decisions. Additional Standing Counsel points out that these have no relevance to revisions under the Orissa Land Reforms Act. This applies to cases under Section 113 of the Cr. P.C. 19. Sri A.B. Misra further argues at length about my power to consider this case under Section 59(2). I have held elsewhere that I have wide power under Section 59(2). 20. Additional Standing Counsel points out that these have no relevance to revisions under the Orissa Land Reforms Act. This applies to cases under Section 113 of the Cr. P.C. 19. Sri A.B. Misra further argues at length about my power to consider this case under Section 59(2). I have held elsewhere that I have wide power under Section 59(2). 20. Sri A.B. Misra further says that as rent receipt has been accused by the Tahasildar, raiyati rights have been corrected iD favour of the sons. No registration is needed for the family arrangement. He refers to Supreme Court decision reported in AIR 1976 S.C. 807 . 21. He further argues that there is no evidence before the Collector or this court that the family was joint before the appointed date. It is only suspicion. Lastly he points out that the classification has been done in the Rent Settlement and the lands have been classified as Class III and Class IV. Draft Statement also mentions this and there is no dispute in this regard. 22. Additional Standing Counsel points out that payment of rent does not order a right if the receipt is marked as 'Without Prejudice'. He further says that marriages of two sons have not been established even though two witnesses have been examined. The Objection petition says that two sons have wives. But this has not been proved. The onus of proof in such matters lies on the O.P. who claims separation and marriage before the appointed date. 23. After hearing both the parties I find that the evidence of the two witnesses and the certificate given by Sarpanch are confusing in establishing that the two sons were major, married and separate from their father before the appointed date. There are over-writings in the objection petition about the wives of the sons. The ages of the sons appear to be tampered in the record. Revenue Officer's enquiry is far from perfect. 24. I would, therefore, set aside the order dated 1-9-1975 of the Revision Officer and remand the case to him for fresh enquiry according to law and to decide clearly whether the two sons were major, married and separate before the appointed date. Incidentally he may also take into account the various issues raised in this Court. 25. Case remanded.