JUDGMENT : K. Ramamurthy, Member. - This is a suo-motu revision under Section 38-B of the O. E. A. Act against orders passed by O. E. A. Collector, Kujanga on 20-2-78 in O. E. A. Case No. 913/76 and Order dated 20-12-75 of the S. D. O., Jagatsinghpur in O. E. A. Appeal No. 3/76. 2. The disputed land is homestead measuring Ac.0.09 acres in plot No. 117 and Khata 53 in Mouza Mahilo. The ex-intermediary is Janardan Rath according to R. O. R. 1930. 3. On 7-1-63 his grand son Narendra sold disputed land by registered sale deed to O. Ps. 3 to 5 through their mother guardian and possession was delivered. Opposite parties 3 to 5 use it as homestead as their own house adjoins it. 4. Additional Standing Counsel points out that Opposite parties 3 to 6 are entitled to settlement under Section 6 of the O. E. A. Act. O. E. A. Collector settled this land in their favour in vesting case No. 1767/74 by his order dated 28-10-75. The estate vested on 29-4-63. 5. Opposite party 2 filed title suit, appeal, second appeal and writ in High Court against this order and failed every where. 6. Opposite party 2 purchased half of the disputed land in registered sale deed on 21-12-74, eleven years after vesting of the estate in Government from Narendra's mother. Additional Standing Counsel points out that this sale is void. 7. Opposite party 2 filed O. E. A. Appeal No. 3/75 on 22-11-75 before the Sub-Divisional Officer. Jagatsinghpur against Settlement made in favour of the opposite parties 3 to 5. Sub-Divisional Officer without notice to opposite parties 3 to 6, allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the O. E. A. Collector. 8. Opposite party 1 filed an application on 13-12-76. O. E. A. Case 913/76 was stated for settlement of disputed land. This was allowed by the O. E. A. Collector, Kujanga on 20-2-78 without issuing usual proclamation inviting objection and without referring previous settlement of the disputed land. 9. Additional Standing Counsel argues that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jagatsinghpur decided the Appeal No. 3/75 without notice to the opposite parties 3 to 6. O. E. A. Collector decided O. E. A. Case No. 913/76 without referring to the previous settlement of the disputed land. Both these decisions are bad in law. 9. Additional Standing Counsel argues that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jagatsinghpur decided the Appeal No. 3/75 without notice to the opposite parties 3 to 6. O. E. A. Collector decided O. E. A. Case No. 913/76 without referring to the previous settlement of the disputed land. Both these decisions are bad in law. Opposite parties 3 to 6 filed an application to the O. E. A. Collector for recalling the order passed in case No. 913/76 as it was passed without any notice to them. O. E. A. Collector treating the said petition as a petition for review rejected it by order dated 10-8-82 and directed to move Board of Revenue under section 38-B. 10. Additional Standing Counsel argues that the order dated 20-2-78 of the O. E. A. Collector and order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jagatsinghpur in Appeal No. 3/75 should be set aside. 11. Opposite parties 1 and 2 have been declared ex-parte. 12. Sri Srinivas Misra, No. 2 appears for opposite parties 3 to 6. He argues that Narendra's mother Nisamani has no right to sell the property after its vesting to the State. Opposite party 1 is the sister-in-law and opposite party 2 is her nephew. 13. I agree with both the Counsel that Sub-Divisional Officer is wrong in remanding the case without notice to opposite parties 3 to 6 for hearing. His order in Appeal No. 3/75 is set aside. 14. I also agree with them that the O. E. A. Collector has no powers to settle this disputed land on 20-2-78 in O. E. A. Case 913/76 in favour of the opposite party 1 without proclamation, particularly when the same land has been settled with opposite parties 3 to 6 earlier by his predecessor. 15. Collector, Cuttack may call for explanation of the Tahasildar concerned who passed this order on 20-2-78. 16. I would uphold the decision of the O. E. A. Collector dated 28-10-75 in Vesting Case No 1767/74 settling this land in favour of the opposite parties 3 to 6. Final Result : Allowed