JUDGMENT : K. Ramamurthy, Member. - This is a revision under Section 59(2) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 moved by Collector, Kalahandi against order of Revenue Officer, Jaipatna in Ceiling Case No. 51/74. 2. In Ceiling Case No. 51/74 Revenue Officer, Jaipatna confirmed the Draft Statement on 11-12-1976. The landholder had 472.60 acres of land. He was allowed to retain 222.69 acres of land. Rent of the lands was declared surplus and vested in Government and distributed to landless persons. 3. Collector finds that 48.50 acres were validly transferred by registered sale deed before 26-9-1970. However, 200.93 acres were transferred by registered sale deed after this date. Transfer of these lands was done by unregistered document before 26-9-1970. Revenue Officer made local enquiry and was satisfied that possession of these lands was transferred to third parties according to these unregistered documents before 26-9-1970. Audit party objected to the compensation calculation in this case. Hence the reference. 4. Shri Srinibas Misra, No. II, Advocate appearing for opposite party argues that the acreage at transfer after the due date is 190.93 acres and not 200.93 acres. Three Revenue Officers had enquired into this case locally on different dates. All of them have held that possession was transferred as per unregistered document made in July, 1967 and July, 1968. In 1970 opposite party's father died and in March, 1972 O. P.'s mother executed a registered sale deed in respect of 60.92 acres to one Paramananda Khamari. This case (Khamari) also came up in appeal as calling surplus holder as the same 60.92 acres were declared celling surplus by Revenue Officer. On revision filed in this case Additional District Magistrate directed fresh enquiry to be made about possession before 26-9-1970 in this case had to make a reference to the Board. 5. Shri Srinibas Mishra, No. II admits that unregistered sale deeds are void abinitio. All the Revenue Officer were unanimous that possession was transferred physically to third parties before 26-9-1970 i. e. in 1967 and 1966. These third parties have perfected their title by adverse possession by 1971 and 1980. This suo-motu case has been started after adverse possession has been perfected. He relies on AIR 1970 S. C. 1778. AIR 1982 A. P. 24 and AIR 1951 S. C 469. 6. These third parties have perfected their title by adverse possession by 1971 and 1980. This suo-motu case has been started after adverse possession has been perfected. He relies on AIR 1970 S. C. 1778. AIR 1982 A. P. 24 and AIR 1951 S. C 469. 6. Shri Srinibas Misra further argues that under Section 44(3) Revenue Officer's order has become conclusive and final as no appeal or revision was filed by the State. This order is final and cannot be questioned under Section 33(2) as there is no provision in this Section saying "Notwithstanding anything contained etc." as is found under Section 7-A of the O. G. L. S. Act. 7. Additional Standing Counsel concedes that two Revenue Officers have enquired separately and found that third parties were in possession since 1967 and 1968. Adverse possession claimed by them against the O. P. is correct. 8. In view of the arguments by the Addl. Standing Counsel there is no case for consideration. If this case had been referred to me before 1979 by the Collector, decision would have been different. 9. However, the ceiling case has now to be taken up by the Revenue Officer against P. Khamari on the basis of this decision and decided according to law. 10. Revision dismissed. Revenue Officer's order up-held.