JUDGMENT : K. Ramamurthy, Member. - This is a revision under Section 59(2) of the O. L. R. Act (herein after referred to as Act). 2. Land Reforms Commissioner has moved me to review the order dated 17-8-1978 of the Revenue Officer, Bhubaneswar passed in O. L. R. Ceiling Case No. 110/74 in this ceiling case. 3. In this ceiling proceeding Revenue Officer finalised the Draft Statement on 30-9-1975 and declared 23.89 acres as surplus. Those lands vested in Government on 1-4-1976. Out of this, 22.59 acres are reported to be distributed to 64 beneficiaries and salami was accepted. 4. Additional Standing Counsel argues that some of these allottees have mortgaged these lands for development purposes to Banks. Once the land has been distributed and third party rights created, it cannot be cancelled or reopered even if there is irregularity in procedure and that too without hearing the allottees as decided by the Hon'ble High Court in O. J. C. No. 867 of 1975. In the instant case the order of restoration of land to the land-lord by the R. O. without hearing the allottees is illegal. 5. The land-owner appealed to the S. D. O. who did not interfere with the R O's order. He filed revision before the R. D. C. who set aside the R.O's order on the ground of gross irregularities and remanded the case to the Revenue Officer. Revenue Officer heard the case afresh and held that there is no ceiling surplus land and dropped the case on 26-5-1978. 6. On 17-8-1978 the land-owner applied under Section 65 of the Act for restoration of the lands. 7. Land Reforms Commissioner says that Revenue Officer committed gross irregularities in his latest order. He did not give an opportunity to new allottees to explain their cases. Under Rule 47(2), interested parties should be given opportunity to be heard. Therefore, he recommends that this order is to be quashed. 8. Similar consideration prevail in O. L. R. Revision Case No. 149 of 1979 in which my predecessor passed the order on 17-9-1980. 9. Sri R.N. Sutar, lawyer for O. P. i. e. the land-holder argues that he was not given any opportunity in 1974. He went on writ to the High Court. He was directed to file an appeal to S. D. O. The order issued on 7-8-1975 two an ex-parte order. 9. Sri R.N. Sutar, lawyer for O. P. i. e. the land-holder argues that he was not given any opportunity in 1974. He went on writ to the High Court. He was directed to file an appeal to S. D. O. The order issued on 7-8-1975 two an ex-parte order. His family size was not enquired into. Government had acquired some property. These have been included in the Draft Statement. Other properties have also been included. His right to retain lands has not been repoted. The total extent is wrong. Confirmation is not according to law. Revenue Officer did not wait for 30 days to publish the statement. 10. He further contends that the lands have not actually been distributed. Third parties created troubles. He filed a suit against them. He obtained a permanent injunction against them on 28-8-1981. Munsif says that there is no proof that the land has been distributed. 11. He further contends that R. I. was asked to enquire after the orders by the R. D. C. His report shows that he was in possession of the lands on 26-5-1978. Further, Revenue Officer returned possession to him on 17-8-1978. No third party ever asked to be the intervener in appeal or revision. 12. He again points out that salami has not been paid within one month according to rule 38-A(B). On 4-6-1976 Revenue Officer passed final orders allotting those lands subject to payment of salami. There is no further order in this regard. There is no record to show that salami was ever paid nor has the R. O. given time to pay salami in instalments. 13. He further argues that the whole case has been abinitio void. Draft Statement is only a list of properties. There is no statement about the family or surplus lands. S. D. O. points out the same in his appellate order. Salami has been deposited with delay of one day, five days etc. This has not been paid in full in some cases. Therefore, lawyer for O. P. land-holder argues that proper procedure has not been followed and so third party right has been created. 14. Notice was given to the allottees. Sri A.K. Tripathy, lawyer appears for some of them. He argues that the land vested in Government on 1-4-1976. Distribution was made on 4-7-1976. Appeal was dismissed on 13-7-1976. Therefore, lawyer for O. P. land-holder argues that proper procedure has not been followed and so third party right has been created. 14. Notice was given to the allottees. Sri A.K. Tripathy, lawyer appears for some of them. He argues that the land vested in Government on 1-4-1976. Distribution was made on 4-7-1976. Appeal was dismissed on 13-7-1976. The order passed by R. D. C. in revision is dated 19-11-1977. I do not know how long the Revenue Officer should wait when it is not proper time. Appeal and revision orders are not received. 15. Sri Sutar appearing for the O P. argues that lower court record has been called for by the appellate court. During the pendency of the appeal, land has been distributed. There is delay in filing this appeal because he was never a party in the previous case. When he came to know about this order, he moved the appellate court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies. 16. Further he observed that salami has not been paid in time and there is no order for accepting the salami. Distribution is illegal. Both the appellate and revision Courts have stated that the final statement has not been served on him. 17. I notice that the Revenue Officer has distributed the lands in this case before receiving the orders of revision court viz. R. D. C. He has no right to do so. He has to wait for the orders on appeal and revision. Revenue Officer definitely committed a mistake in distributing these lands in a hurry. 18. The Munsif has also passed a permanent injunction against the third parties saying that there is no proof that the land was distributed to them. Revenue Officer had no right to distribute the lands before receiving the orders of R. D. C. in revision. 19. In a case reported in 53 (1982) C. L. T. 501, it is held by the High Court that the Act provides that vesting takes place only when appeal and revision is disposed of. Any distribution made without authority of the Act cannot operate against the interest of the land-holder. 20. Further when salami has not been paid at all in time and only partly paid, the right cannot be perfected by the allottees. Any distribution made without authority of the Act cannot operate against the interest of the land-holder. 20. Further when salami has not been paid at all in time and only partly paid, the right cannot be perfected by the allottees. There is no order to the effect that the allottees have been given extra time for paying salami or paying in instalment. Rule 38(A)(B) applies in this case. 21. I would hold that no third parties' rights have been created in this case. The salami, if any, paid by the allottees may be returned to them. There is no need to interfere with the orders of the Revenue Officer. 22. Revision dismissed.