JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - The Petitioners in these writ applications seek to challenge the revisional order dated 19-2-1982 of the Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa (opposite party No. 2) cancelling the leases granted to the Petitioners by the Tahasilda, Salipur Tahasil (opposite party No. 3). Since the impugned orders in all the writ petitions are similar and the cases involve common questions of fact and law they have been heard together with the consent of the parties and they shall be disposed of by this judgment. The facts relevant for the purpose of the present proceedings are that the Petitioners applied to the Tahasildar, Salipur, Tahasil in the year 1930 for grant of permanent lease of different parcels of land in mouza-Bada Bhirnarajpur, in Salipur Tahasil. The lands applied for were recorded in the settlement record rights as 'Abadi Jogya Anabadi Land' belonging to the State Government. Each application was registered as a case before the Tahasildar, Salipur. The Tahasildar, according to the Petitioners, after complying with the procedure prescribed under the statute and the rules, passed order on 18-8-1980 granting lease of the land applied for by each of the Petitioners and fixed the annual rent payable by the lessees. The order of the Tahasildar is annexed as Annexure-1 in each of the writ applications. In pursuance of the said order 'pattas' were also issued to the Petitioners. The Petitioners further allege that while continuing in possession of the land leased out to them they came to learn that opposite party Nos. 4 to 7 had moved the Consolidation Officer in charge of the consolidation operation in the area for recording their names in the land records and being unsuccessful in the said attempt before the Consolidation Officer they had filed appeals before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Range-I, Cuttack (oppositeparty No. 8). On their application the Petitioners were impleaded as respondcnt.s in the said appeak The uppeals are pendingbefore the Appellate authority. In the meanwhile, the opposite party Nos. 4 to 7 filed an applications u/s 7-A of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act') before the opposite party No. 2, Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa (hereinafter referred to as the revisional authority) to set aside the order of the Tahasildar granting lease of the land in favour of the Petitioners. 4 to 7 filed an applications u/s 7-A of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act') before the opposite party No. 2, Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa (hereinafter referred to as the revisional authority) to set aside the order of the Tahasildar granting lease of the land in favour of the Petitioners. It may be mentioned here that there is no controversy that the leases in favour of the Petitioners were granted under provisions of the Act. The gist of the case of the opposite party Nos. 4 to 7 before the revisional authority was that they were lessees of the lands in question under the ex-landlord prior to vesting of the estate in the State of Orissa, they were possessing the disputed lands as tenants and were paying rent to the ex-landlord before vesting and to the State Government after vesting of the estate; their names were recorded in the tenants' 'Ledger of the land in question and in these circumstances, the disputed properties were not available to be leased out by the Tahasildar, Salipur. The opposite party Nos. 4 to 7 further contended that the leases granted to Petitioners were null and void for non-compliance with the provisions of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962, and the Orissa Government Land Settlement Rules, 1974. The Member, Board of Revenue, on consideration of the rival contentions raised by the parties came to hold that the orders granting lease of the land to the Petitioners in each case was vitiated since the proclamation was not published by beat of drums and by affixing a copy of the same at a conspicuous place of the village in which land was situated and further that a copy of the proclamation was not sent to the Gramapanchayat in which the land was situated as required under Rule 3(5) of the Rules. He further observed that the Tahasildar before granting the applications for lease had not made necessary enquiries to ascertain whether the land in respect of which lease was applied for was available to be leased out. On these findings the learned Member, exercising power of suo motu revision u/s 7-A(3) of the Act cancelled the leases in favour of the Petitioners. 2. On these findings the learned Member, exercising power of suo motu revision u/s 7-A(3) of the Act cancelled the leases in favour of the Petitioners. 2. The Petitioners in their writ applications challenge the aforementioned order of the Member, Board of Revenue on the grounds, inter alia that the revisional authority should not have entertained the applications filed by the opposite party Nos. 4 to 7 since the appeals filed by the said opposite parties were pending before the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Range-I, Cuttack (opposite party No. 8) and the appellate authority is fully competent to consider questions relating to right, title and interest in the disputed land. The Petitioners further contend that the observations/findings by the Member, Board of Revenue, the highest revenue authority in the State who is vested with the powers to superintend and regulate all measures under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Consolidation Act') is bound to prejudicially affect the case of the Petitioners in the appeals pending before the opposite party No. 8. On these submissions, the Petitioners, pray for quashing the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, Annexure-4. 3. The opposite party Nos. 4 to 7 in their counter affidavit have supported the order as perfectly legal, valid and justified on the materials on record as well as in law. 4. Shri N.K. Das, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has raised the following contentions: (a) That the order of the Member, Board of Revenue (Annexure-4) is without jurisdiction since the authorities under the Consolidation Act are alone entitled to determine the questions of right, title and interest in the disputed land and proceedings in this regard pending before the appellate authority. The learned Counsel places reliance on Section 51 of the Consolidation Act in support of his contention. (b) That the proceedings u/s 7-A(3) before the Member, Board of Revenue were not maintainable since the opposite party Nos. 4 to 7 did not challenge in appeal the order of the Tahasidar, Salipur granting lease of the lands in favour of the Petitioners. (b) That the proceedings u/s 7-A(3) before the Member, Board of Revenue were not maintainable since the opposite party Nos. 4 to 7 did not challenge in appeal the order of the Tahasidar, Salipur granting lease of the lands in favour of the Petitioners. (c) That the Member, Board of Revenue while passing the impugned order has not confined his consideration to the question of validity of the lease granted to the Petitioners but has made observations concerning the right, title and interest of the parties in the disputed properties and this will prejudicially affect the Petitioners in the proceedings pending before opposite party No. 8(d) That the grounds stated in the impugned order or which the lease proceedings before the Tahasildar have been held to have been vitiated are not tenable. 5. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions raised and the argument advanced by the learned Counsel by both the parties. We arc unable to accept the contention of Sri N.K. Das that the order of the Member, Board of Revenue (Annexure-4) is liable to be quashed. 6. The position is not in controversy that the disputed properties stand recorded as Government 'Abadi Jogya Anabadi' land in the settlement record of rights published in 1970. The revision petition filed by the opposite parties Nos. 4 to 7 before the Board of Revenue challenging the settlement record was held to have abated since the area came under notification issued under the Consolidation Act. It is not disputed that this order was correct and proper in view of the provision, Section 4(3) of the Consolidation Act. It is also the accepted position that the opposite parties Nos. 4 to 7 approached the Consolidation Officer for recording their names in respect of the disputed properties in the land records and having been unsuccessful before the said authority filed appeals before the Deputy Director, Range-I, Cuttack and the said appeals are pending adjudication. The question for consideration is whether during the pendency of the aforesaid appeals it was legal and proper on the part of the Member, B') and of Revenue to exercise his suo motu rivisional power u/s 7-A(3) of the Orissa Government Land, Settlement Act, 1962. The matter for consideration before the Board of Revenue was whether the leases granted to the Petitioners were liable to be cancelled. The matter for consideration before the Board of Revenue was whether the leases granted to the Petitioners were liable to be cancelled. This matter is not within the competence of the authorities under the Consolidation Act since they have not been vested with power to cancel a document under provisions of the statute. The view gains support from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari Narain Singh and Ors. AIR 1973 S.C. 245. Considering Section 51 of the Consolidation Act on which reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners to show that jurisdiction of the Member, Board of Revenue u/s 7-A was ousted, we do not find any support for the said contention from the said proveision. Section 51, in terms, does not apply to the Board of Revenue which is not a 'Civil Court'. The said section provides that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain and continue a proceeding in respect of a subject matter which is vested in the authority under the Consolidation Act is ousted. Therefore, it is manifest that the bar of jurisdiction u/s 51 will not apply to the Board of Revenue which is not a Civil Court and the power to cancel the leases is not vested in the authorities under the Consolidation Act. As such, this contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has to be rejected as devoid of merit. 7. Another submission of Sri N.K. Das was that during the pendency of the appeals before the Deputy Director, Consolidation, it was not proper on the part of the Member, Board of Revenue to go into the claim of right, title and interest of the parties in the disputed properties. We see no merit in this submission also. The subject matter of dispute in the appeals pending before the Deputy Director Consolidation is whether the claims of the opposite party Nos. 4 to 7 that they were tenants under the ex-intermediary before vesting of the estate and under the State Government thereafter can be upheld, The appellate authority is not directly concerned with the question of validity of the leases granted to the Petitioners, though it may have an indirect bearing on the subject matter inasmuch as if the claim of title by opposite parties Nos. 4 to 7 upheld the conclusion is inescapable that the properties were not available to be leased out to the Petitioners. Therefore, it cannot be said that in the circumstances of the case it was not legal and proper for the Board of Revenue to go into question of validity of the leases granted to the Petitioners during the pendency of the appeals before the opposite party No. 8. 8. The other contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners relates to the maintainability of the proceeding u/s 7-A of Orissa Government Land Settlement Act before the Board of Revenue. Referring to different Sub-sections of Section 7-A, the learned Counsel contends that a suo motu revision can be entertained only where the parties concerned have exhausted the remedy of appeal u/s 7 of the Act. Since in the present case the opposite parties Nos. 4 to 7 did not challenge the order of the Tahasildar granting leases to the, Petitioners the revisional proceedings are not maintainable. We find little merit in this submission, As noticed earlier, the Member, Board of Revenue exercised the power of suo motu revision vested in him u/s 7-A(3) of the Act and set aside the leases in favour of the Petitioners. The said provision is quoted hereunder: 7-A(1) The Board of revenue may of its own action or otherwise call for and examine the records of any proceedings in which any authority subordinate to it has passed an order under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself that any such order was not passed under a mistake of fact or owing to fraud or misrepresentation and may pass such order thereon as it thinks fit: Provided that no order shall be passed under this Sub-section unless the person affected by the proposed order has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter; Provided further that no order shall be revised under this Sub-section after the expiry of one year from the date of the order. Section 7-A(1) provides for a revision against any order made under Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act if an application is made by the aggrieved person within a period of ninety clays from the date of the order. Section 7-A(1) provides for a revision against any order made under Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act if an application is made by the aggrieved person within a period of ninety clays from the date of the order. But Sub-section (3) of the said section vests power in the authority, the Board of Revenue in this case, to call for on his own motion or otherwise, and examine the records of any proceedings in which any authority subordinate to it has passed an order under this Act for the purpose of satisfying himself that any such order was not passed under a mistake of fact or owing to a fraud or misrepresentation or on account of any material irregularity of procedure and empowers the authority to pass such order thereon as he thinks fit. It is clear from this provision that exercise of the suo motu revisional power does not depend on filing of application by the aggrieved person existence of an order of the appellate authority is not a condition precedent to exercise of the power. The power may be exercised by the prescribed authority on getting information from any source or on a random check with a view to satisfy himself that provisions of the statute are being properly implemented. Therefore, this submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has to be rejected as without merit. 9. The point that remains for consideration is whether the Member, Board of Revenue was justified in holding that in the facts and circumstances of the cases provisions of Rule 3(5) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Rules, 1974 were not complied with before granting lease in favour of the Petitioner. Rule 3 lays down the manner of settlement of Government land. Sub-rules (4), (5) and (6) which are material for the purpose of the present proceedings are quoted hereunder (4) If after enquiry the Tahasildar or the authorised officer is of the opinion that settlement of land may be granted, he shall publish a proclamation which shall contain r articulars of the applicant and particulars of the land applied for settlement such as name of the village, plot number, khata number kisam of the land and area etc. and such other details as may be necessary and invite objections if any, fixing a date for hearing of objections. and such other details as may be necessary and invite objections if any, fixing a date for hearing of objections. (5) The proclamation shall be published by beat of drum and by affixing a copy of the same at a conspicuous place in the village in which land is situated in the presence of not less than two persons. If the village is uninhabited, the notice shall be published in the aforesaid manner in the nearest inhabited village. A copy of the proclamation shall be published affixing in the Notice Board of Tahasil Office a copy shall also be sent to the Grama Panchayat in which the land is situated. (6) On expiry of fifteen days from the date of publication in the village and after hearing objections if any, the Tahasildar or the authorised officer shall if he is satisfied that the applicant is deserving and there is no objection to settlement On any ground make an order granting settlement of the land applied for or any portion thereof. Under Sub-rule 5 of Rule 3 the proclamation containing the particulars specified in Sub-rule 4 shall be published by beat of drum and by affixing a copy of the same at a conspicuous place in the village in which the land is situated, in the presence of not less than two persons. It is further provided thereunder that a copy of the proclamation shall be affixed in the Notice Board of Tahasil Office and a copy shall also be sent to the Grama Panchayat in which the land is situated. These provisions are intended to give wide publicity to an application for lease of Government land. Pari materia provisions under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951, were held by this Court to be mandatory in the case of Baikuntha Das v. Sabitri Devi and Anr. ILR 1971 Cutt. 1065, and Lalbehari Patnaik v. Sarswati Ray and Ors. 1973 (2) C.W.R. 1026. The Member, Board of Revenue on consideration of the materials on record came to hold that the proclamation in these cases were neither published by beat of drum nor by affixing copies of the same at a conspicuous place in the village in which land is situated. He further held that copies of the proclamation were also not sent to the Grama Panchayat in which the land was situated. He further held that copies of the proclamation were also not sent to the Grama Panchayat in which the land was situated. On these findings, he came to hold that provisions of Rule 3(5) were not complied with before the land was settled with the Petitioners and thus the proceedings were vitiated. The learned Counsel for the 'Petitioners submits that since the order sheet of the lease proceeding showed that the proclamations were duly published in the manner prescribed under Rule 3(5) it has to be presumed that it was so done after complying with all the requirements of the provision. He also submitted that sending a copy of the proclamation to the Grama Panchayat is necessary only if the land is situated in an uninhabited village which is not the case in these proceedings. On careful consideration, we are unable to accept any of these submissions. From a bare reading of Sub-rule 5 of Rule 3, it is manifest that the provision does not warrant the interpretation that sending a copy of the proclamation to the Grama Panchayat in which the land is situated is required to be complied with only if the land is situated in an uninhabited village. A bare reading of the provision would indicate that in the case of the land being situated in an uninhabited village the only difference in the manner of publication is that in such a case the notice shall be published in nearest inhabited village. All the other requirements prescribed under Rule 3(5) are to be complied with in each case irrespective whether the land proposed to be leased out is situated in an inhabited or an uninhabited village. As discussed earlier, the suo motu revisional power u/s 7-A(3) is vested in the Board of Revenue (now the Collector) to enable him to be satisfied that any order passed by any subordinate authority under the Act was not passed, inter alia, on account of any material irregularity or procedure. As such, it cannot be said that simply because the Tahasildar has recorded in the order sheet that the proclamation has been duly published the revisional authority is precluded from examining the correctness of the said order and if on examination of the materials on record he finds that indeed the requirements of the rule have not been complied with he cannot cancel the order granting the lease. It the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is accepted, the very purpose of vesting suo motu revisional power in a superior authority would be rendered nugatory in mast cases. In this view of the matter, the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner set out above, have also to be rejected as without force. 10. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has raised a contention that the Member, Board of Revenue, while passing the impugned order has not only considered that the orders granting the lease in question were passed after complying with the requirements of Rule 3 of the rules, but he has also considered the claim of title by the opposite parties over the disputed land which should have been left for consideration by the appellate authority under the Consolidation Act before whom the appeals are pending. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Member, Board of Revenue has not given any express finding accepting or rejecting the claim of right, title and interest of the opposite party Nos. 4 to 7 in the disputed lands. He has made some observations on this aspect. The position has to be accepted that during the continuance of the consolidation scheme in an area, all questions relating to the right, title and interest in respect of consolidation lands are to be adjudicated upon by the authorities under the Consolidation Act. As such, the claim of right, title and interest by the opposite party No. 4 to 7 over the disputed properties, particularly the question whether they were tenants in respect of the lands under the ex-intermediary before vesting of the estate in the State Government and under the latter thereafter is to be considered by the appellate authority, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Cuttack, Range-I. We would make it clear that the appellate authority would dispose of the appeals pending before him on merit in accordance with law without being influenced in any manner by the observations of the Member, Board of Revenue, in the impugned order. 11. In view of the discussions aforesaid, we find little scope for interfering with the order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue cancelling the lease of the disputed land granted to each of the Petitioners. In the result, the writ applications are dismissed subject to the observations made in the preceding paragraph. 11. In view of the discussions aforesaid, we find little scope for interfering with the order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue cancelling the lease of the disputed land granted to each of the Petitioners. In the result, the writ applications are dismissed subject to the observations made in the preceding paragraph. Both parties would bear their respective costs of these proceedings. D. Pathak, C.J. 12. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed