JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - These two writ petitions are directed against the same order of the Additional District Magistrate, Ganjam, in O.E.A. Appeal No. 14/81 and the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Parlakhemundi in the same case. 2. The petitioner in O. J. C. No. 2515/83 has prayed to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 1-11-1983 annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition and to direct the Sub-Divisional Officer, opposite party no. 3 to dispose of the appeal. The petitioners in the other writ petition (O. J. C. No. 483/84) have prayed to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order the Additional District Magistrate, Ganjam, in O. E. A. Appeal No. 14/81 annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, and also to quash the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 1-11-1983, Annexure-2. 3. The admitted facts of the case are that the disputed land in question vested in the State of Orissa under the provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. Applications for settlement of land by the ex-intermediaries not being filed within a period of six months from the date of vesting there was no settlement of land under the provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. Long thereafter, the ex-intermediary (petitioner in O. J. C. No. 2525/83) filed an application on 29-12-1975 before the Orissa Estates Abolition Collector which was numbered as O. E. A Case No. 197/75. It was alleged therein that on the date of vesting, the land in question being in khas possession of the intermediary, he was entitled to be settled with the land on fair and equitable rent. In the said proceeding objections were invited and opposite parties nos. 5 to 12 in O. J. C. No. 2515/83 filed objection, inter alia, on the ground that they purchased the land in question in an auction purchase held by Land Development Bank of Parlakhemundi and are in possession of the same pursuance to the said auction purchase and, therefore, are entitled to be settled with the land in question. The Collector under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, after hearing parties, by order dated 30th of June, 1981 settled the land with the said opposite parties nos. 5 to 12. The Collector under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, after hearing parties, by order dated 30th of June, 1981 settled the land with the said opposite parties nos. 5 to 12. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order filed an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate, Ganjam which was numbered as Orissa Estates Abolition Appeal No. 14/81 and the said Additional District Magistrate by his order dated 28-8-1982 held the appeal to be not maintainable as the order of the Estates Abolition Collector settling the land with opposite parties 5 to 12 was not in exercise of powers under section 8-A of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act but under the Government Circular dated 2-3-1964. Having held the appeal to be not maintainable, he remanded the case to the Sub-Divisional Officer for disposal in accordance with law. The Sub-Divisional Officer in his turn by order dated 1-11-1983 interpreted the order of the Additional District Magistrate to mean that the Tahasildar would dispose of the case under Orissa Government Land Settlement Act and accordingly he directed that the case record be sent to the Tahasildar, Parlakhemundi. 4. Mr. Patnaik, the learned counsel for the petitioner in O. J. C. No. 2515/83, contended that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was wholly without jurisdiction and he failed to exercise his jurisdiction in not disposing of the appeal as directed by the Additional District Magistrate and in remanding the matter to the Tahasildar. Mr. Murty, the learned counsel for the petitioner in the other O. J. C., namely, O. J. C. No. 483/84 on the other hand contended that the Additional District Magistrate having held the appeal as not maintainable had no further jurisdiction to remand the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer and the order of the Additional District Magistrate on that score is a nullity. According to Mr Murty therefore the said null and void order of the Additional District Magistrate does not confer any power on the Sub-Divisional Officer to dispose of the matter and the original order of the Tahasildar settling the land in their favour must stand. 5. According to Mr Murty therefore the said null and void order of the Additional District Magistrate does not confer any power on the Sub-Divisional Officer to dispose of the matter and the original order of the Tahasildar settling the land in their favour must stand. 5. Section 8-A of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act provides that the intermediary shall file his claim in the prescribed manner for settlement of fair and equitable rent in respect of lands and buildings which are deemed to be settled under section 6 or section 7 before the Collector within six months from the date of vesting. Section 8-A(3) of the Act provides the consequences of failure to file the claims within the statutory period, the consequence being that the right to make the claim stands extinguished and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 6, 7 and 8, section 5(h) applies and the land or buildings or structures stand vested in the State by operation of law. The Government found that many intermediaries did not file claim petitions within the period prescribed under the statutes even though they continued to occupy the land in question. It was felt that strict application of these provisions caused considerable hardship particularly to the small intermediaries. The Government therefore issued an Administrative Order indicating that those who are entitled to, but have not taken advantage of the statutory provisions to retain the lands in their possession under Sections 6, 7 and 8(3) of the Act, can file applications to the Tahasildar applying for lease of the lands and the Tahasildar after making due enquiry will settle the lands with eligible persons with rights of occupancy after levying salami equivalent to three times the annual rent of the land. The very same Government Order provides that the order of the Tahasildar is appelable to the Sub-Divisional Officer within 30 days from the date of the order and a further revision lies against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer to the Collector. This Government Order is numbered as Estates Abolition-11-110/63-14399 dated 2-3-1964. The Board of Revenue issued certain instructions supplementing the aforesaid Government order laying down the procedure to be followed by the Revenue Officer in disposing of the said applications for grant of lease, by Board's Letter No. 5049 dated 19-5-1964 and letter No. 9017 dated 11-9-1964. This Government Order is numbered as Estates Abolition-11-110/63-14399 dated 2-3-1964. The Board of Revenue issued certain instructions supplementing the aforesaid Government order laying down the procedure to be followed by the Revenue Officer in disposing of the said applications for grant of lease, by Board's Letter No. 5049 dated 19-5-1964 and letter No. 9017 dated 11-9-1964. There is no dispute that in the present case the intermediary did not file any application under section 8-A within six months from the date of vesting and, therefore, the application filed long after the expiry of the statutory period could be entertained only under the aforesaid Government Order. The order of the Tahasildar rejecting the petitioner's application and settling the land in favour of opposite parties 5 to 12 is therefore not in exercise of his powers under section 8-A of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act but in exercise of powers under the Government order dated 2-3-1964. The said order is therefore appealable to the Sub-Divisional Officer under clause (h) of the said Government Order and the Additional District Magistrate was entirely justified in holding that the appeal was not maintainable before him but before the Sub-Divisional Officer. 6. The Sub-Divisional Officer would not have sent the matter again to the Tahasildar to dispose of the same in accordance with Orissa Government Land Settlement Act. In our opinion, the Sub-Divisional Officer committed error of law in interpreting the order of the Additional District Magistrate to be a remand to the Tahasildar and acted in excess of his jurisdiction in sending the case to the Tahasildar for disposal. We are also of the opinion that the conclusion of the Sub Divisional Officer that the matter should be disposed of according to Orissa Government Land Settlement Act is wholly untenable and in our view the matter has to be disposed of in accordance with the lease principles of the Government as enunciated in the Government Order referred to earlier. In that view of the matter, the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 1-11-1983 (Annexure-2) is set aside. 7. Mr. Murty's contention in the other O. J. C. No. 483/84 that the Additional District Magistrate after holding the appeal as not maintainable before him had no further jurisdiction to remand the case to the Sub-Divisional Officer, may have some force technically. 7. Mr. Murty's contention in the other O. J. C. No. 483/84 that the Additional District Magistrate after holding the appeal as not maintainable before him had no further jurisdiction to remand the case to the Sub-Divisional Officer, may have some force technically. But once we come to the conclusion that the Sub-Divisional Officer and not the Additional District Magistrate is the appellate authority against the original order of the Tahasildar and the intermediary preferred an appeal to the Additional District Magistrate under the impression that the order of the Tahasildar is one under Orissa Estates Abolition Act, substantial justice has been done by remanding the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer for disposal of the appeal and it would not be proper for the High Court to interfere with the said order in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Additional District Magistrate and Mr. Murty's prayer must, therefore, be rejected. 8. For the sake of clarity we may sum up our conclusions as follows :- (i) The application of the ex-intermediary dated 29-12-1975 could not be an application under section 8-A(1) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act but must be one under Government Order No. 14399 dated 2-3-1964 which is commonly known as the lease principles. (ii) The said application has to be disposed of in accordance with the said Government Order (lease principles). (iii) The appeal against the order lies to the Sub-Divisional Officer under clause (h) of the Government Order. (iv) The Sub-Divisional Officer must dispose of the appeal in accordance with the said lease principles. (v) The order of the Sub-Divisional Officer directing the Tahasildar to dispose of the matter under Orissa Government Land Settlement Act is illegal as the said Act has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. In the ultimate result, therefore, we issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Parlakhemundi (Annexure-2) dated 1-11-1983 and further we issue a writ of mandamus directing the Sub-Divisional Officer, Parlakhemundi, opposite party no. 3 to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law keeping in mind our observations made earlier in this judgment by giving opportunities to both the parties to argue out the matter, within three months from the date of receipt of the order. 3 to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law keeping in mind our observations made earlier in this judgment by giving opportunities to both the parties to argue out the matter, within three months from the date of receipt of the order. Both the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, there would be no order for costs. Final Result : Dismissed