JUDGMENT : Pathak, C.J. - This writ application is directed against the order dated 29. 6. 1978 passed by the Collector, Mayurbhanj, opposite party No. 3, in O. L. R. Revision Case No. 1 of 1978 by which he has rejected the petitioner's revision petition to move the Member, Board of Revenue, u/s 44(2) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1 60 (hereinafter called the 'Act') to revise the order dated 27. 12. 1976 passed by the Revenue Officer, Udala, in O. L R. Case No. 66 of 1974. 2. A brief narration of the facts leading to the writ application is that a ceiling proceeding under the Act was initiated suo motu against Jaba Dei, opposite party No. 2, who is since deceased and substituted by her legal representatives. In that ceiling proceeding, the petitioner appeared and gave evidence. However, on the materials on record, the learned Revenue Officer, opposite party No. 1, came to the conclusion that opposite party No. 2 was having ceiling surplus /ands to the extent of Act 11.80 dec. The present writ petition has been filed by Durga Charan Majhi, the step-son of the deceased opposite party No. 2 being the issue of the spouse of the family according to the provisions of Section 376 of the Act. 3. It is queer that the petitioner has not even annexed to the writ petition a copy of the order- passed by the Revenue Officer in the ceiling proceeding. Therefore, we are not in a position to know whether the said order any way suffers from any infirmity. 4. The petitioner has made a grievance that no notice of the proceeding was given to him. We have already adverted that the petitioner appeared as a witness in the proceeding. 5. Therefore, we are not in a position to know whether the said order any way suffers from any infirmity. 4. The petitioner has made a grievance that no notice of the proceeding was given to him. We have already adverted that the petitioner appeared as a witness in the proceeding. 5. Rule 30(1) of the Orissa Land Reforms (General) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') reads as follows : "The draft statement shall be published by affixing a true copy of it to the notice board of the Revenue Officer and keeping it open for inspection, free of charge, by any person interested during office hours on working days for a period of thirty days from the date on which the copy is first affixed to his notice-board." sub-rule (1) of Rule 30 is to the following effect : "On the date of affixture on the notice-board under Sub-rule (1), a copy of the draft statement shall be communicated, to the person to whom the statement relates by registered post to his address as appearing in the records, with a notice inviting objections, if any, to any entry in or omission from, the draft statement to be filed within thirty days from the date of affixture in the notice-board." On a perusal of the rule noticed above, we are of the opinion that in the present case the petitioner is a person interested because the notice of proceeding was sent to the mother against whom the proceeding had been initiated and having knowledge of the proceeding, petitioner appeared as a witness and gave evidence. If he had any grievance, he could have filed an objection according to the provision of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 30. But that he has not done. 6. Even on merit, it is too late in the day for the petitioner to make a grievance that he did not have notice of the proceeding. If he was any way aggrieved by the order of the Revenue Officer, he could have very well preferred an appeal u/s 44 (2) of the Act. But that also has not been done by the petitioner. 7. We have gone through the order dated 29. 6. 1978 passed by the Collector, opposite party No. 3 but we do not find any infirmity in the same calling for our interference. 8. But that also has not been done by the petitioner. 7. We have gone through the order dated 29. 6. 1978 passed by the Collector, opposite party No. 3 but we do not find any infirmity in the same calling for our interference. 8. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the writ application. It is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order for costs. S.C. MOHAPATRA, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed