JUDGMENT : K. Ramamurthy, Member. - This is a suo motu revision under section 38-B of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act against the order dated 28-11-1980 of the Additional District Magistrate, Cuttack in O. E. A. Appeal No. 7 of 1976. 2. Sri A. K. Praharaj, Advocate appearing for petitioners points out that the Sub-Divisional Officer. Sadar, Cuttack on the basis of a report of Tahasildar, initiated a proceeding under Section 5(i) of the O. E. A. Act and cancelled the lease granted in favour of the petitioners and others by his order dated 14-4-1976 in Misc. Case No. 14/70 and the Additional District Magistrate in appeal confirmed the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The disputed land measures 3.82 acres in 3 plots under Khata No. 1 and 235 in mouza Bidyadharpur out of which in 1942 Sri Bhagaban Das, ex-intermediary is reported to have given an unregistered lease of 1.02 acres of land in plot No. 1475 in mouza Bidyadharpur in Cuttack District to Ankura Behera for agricultural purpose. This was noted as Bagayat land also Nijchas. There was no mango tree actually on the land and it it is long fallow. Sri Praharaj says that this is made cultivable by petitioners. This was transferred in 1967 to his wife, Gunjari Dei. Settlement also recorded in her favour. The kisam of the land was noted Biali Dofasali. 3. Bhagaban Das had given a number of leases like this to others. Villagers of Sandhapur claimed that this land is communal land in nature and being used as a pasturage and cremation ground prior to vesting and lease executed by landlord is antidated. 4. Tahasildar found that some of the lease-holders who took lands from Bhagaban Das, surrendered the lease of 4.36 acres relinquishing their rights in respect of the land and admitted that this lease is fraudulently forged and antedated. This accounts for 8.18 acres. Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar submitted this case to the Sub-Divisional Officer for action under section 5(1). S. D. O. found that Bhagaban Das was not ex-intermediary at the time he gave leases. Leases given by Sri Das are antedated. Two other co-sharers-intermediaries stated in their affidavits that they had no knowledge about plot No. 1475 being leased out by them or any other cosharer. There was an appeal to the A. D. M. which also failed. It was held that the land was communal. Leases given by Sri Das are antedated. Two other co-sharers-intermediaries stated in their affidavits that they had no knowledge about plot No. 1475 being leased out by them or any other cosharer. There was an appeal to the A. D. M. which also failed. It was held that the land was communal. Bhagaban Das was not ex-intermediary and lease was antedated. 5. Sri Praharaj, Advocate argues that case under action 5(i) of the O E. A. Act can only be started against intermediary and as such Bhagaban Das has been treated as intermediary. 6. He concedes Bhagaban Das's name has not been mutated in 'B' Register. Rent Suit Officer in his order dated 1-8-1932 declared Bhagaban Das as intermediary with interest of 2 annas 3 pies share in this estate. 7. He claims that such ex-intermediary could lease out land. Antedating is not proved. He also points out that plot numbers have been noted in the back side of the lease deed which has been overlooked by the S D. O.. He also questions the propriety of the lower court clubbing all cases together under section 5(i). If some of the lessees surrender their leases and admits antedating, it is not correct to hold that the same thing happened in this case also. 8. He says that B. Das is ex-intermediary. Land has been mutated in his name as tenant. At the time of the sale of this land to his wife in 1957, there was no dispute about possession of the land. 9. This estate vested in Government in 1954. There is no document of the villagers about their right for grazing or cremation over this land. 10. He relies on section 94 of the Orissa Tenancy Act. He says only Collector can acquire private land and declare it for comminal purpose after he is so satisfied. 11. He points out that only evidence against him in this case is spot enquiry by the S. D. O. 12. I perused the Rent Receipts filed by the petitioner before the S. D. O. which were given by different R. Is. In the Rent Receipts pertaining to the year 1962 and 1963 there is no stamp "without prejudice", but in the Rent Receipts of 1964 there is the stamp "without prejudice." 13. Lastly he says that the final R. O. R. shows that this is Government land and not communal land. In the Rent Receipts pertaining to the year 1962 and 1963 there is no stamp "without prejudice", but in the Rent Receipts of 1964 there is the stamp "without prejudice." 13. Lastly he says that the final R. O. R. shows that this is Government land and not communal land. 14. Additional Standing Counsel points out that 4.36 acres leased out by Bhagban Das to other persons have been surrendered. The balance is 3.82 annas. Sri B. Das has no right, title or interest over this land. His name was not recorded in the 'B' Register. 15. Additional Standing Counsel further points out that Bhagaban Das gave evidence before the O. E. A. Collector that he had no other share-holders in this case. Ekpadia has not been filed. Other shareholders deny any knowledge of this lease. Collector's permission is necessary for leasing comunal lands. 16. I have disposed of a few other cases of leases given by Bhagaban Das, namely O. E. A. R. C. 77/83, 94/83 and 95/83. It has been found in those cases that Bhagaban Das had 2 annas 3 pies share. In all these cases he gave lands unilaterally without consulting other co-sharers. In this case as a shareholder intermediary be can at best give temporary lease. He cannot confer occupancy right on any tenant without the consent of the other shareholders. The same argument holds good in this case. Irrespective of the fact that this is a communal land by usage or otherwise. I would hold that Sri Bhagaban Das had no right to confer occupancy right in favour of any person in this case. As such lease given by him is not valid. 17. In this case number of persons have taken leases from this intermediary. These are accepted to be antedated and these have been surrendered. It follows from their action that all these leases given by Bhagaban Das were antedated. He has given the plots from the same land at the same time to different persons. 18. I would, therefore, declare these leases to be void under section 5(i) of O. E. A. Act. 19. Revision is rejected. Final Result : Dismissed