JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - The short question involved in this case whether the Petitioner is entitled to settlement of the disputed land u/s 5 of the Orissa Merged Territories (Village Offices Abolition) Act, 1963 (Orissa Act 10 of 1963) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The disputed land, 3.35 acres in extent, under Sabik Plot No. 201 corresponding to Hal Plot Nos. 411, 413 and 414 in mouza Mahulpali was a part of bhogra lands held by the Petitioner, the erstwhile Ganju of village Mahulpali, which is now a part of the town of Rourkela. The Act was extended to the area in question on 1-4-1966. Thereafter Revenue Misc. Case No. 61 of 1966-67 was started before the Tahasildar; Panposh for settlement of bhogra lands with the Petitioner as provided under the Act. The proceeding having been disposed of by the authorities not to the satisfaction of the Petitioner he approached this Court in Civil Revision Nos. 365, 371 and 379 of 1976 which were disposed of on 20-9-1978. The disputed property in the present case was the subject matter of Civil Revision No. 371 of 1978. This Court remanded the proceeding to the Tahasildar for fresh enquiry and disposal according to law. 2. After remand the Tahasildar called upon the Petitioner to substantiate his claim for settlement by adducing evidence. He also gave opportunities to the State Government in the Works Department since it was refuting the claim of actual cultivating possession of the disputed land by the Petitioner on the appointed date. The Tahasildar on consideration of the evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that the disputed land was not in separate and actual cultivating possession of the Petitioner immediately before the appointed date and hence his claim for settlement could not be accepted. This decision has been upheld by the Addl. District Magistrate in first appeal and also by the Board of Revenue in second appeal. Hence this revision petition by the Petitioner under the provisions of Section 13(3)(a) of the Act. 3. Shri H. Patel, learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the forums below have erred in not maintaining the distinction between 20 decimals of land out of the plots in question which admittedly were not in possession of the Petitioner by the appointed date and the rest of the area which was claimed by him in the proceeding. 3. Shri H. Patel, learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the forums below have erred in not maintaining the distinction between 20 decimals of land out of the plots in question which admittedly were not in possession of the Petitioner by the appointed date and the rest of the area which was claimed by him in the proceeding. Thus the identity of the disputed land having not been kept in view, their findings have been vitiated. He has placed before me in extenso the orders passed by the Tahasildar, the first appellate court and the Member, Board of Revenue. 4. Before proceeding to consider the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner it would be helpful to quote Section 13(3) of the Act so that the scope of this revision petition may be kept in view: Section 13(3). Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Board of Revenue in an appeal: (a) Under any of the provisions of this Act other than Sub-section (4) of Section 10 may, within sixty days from the date of such order, file an application for revision on a question of law before the High Court; and (b) under Sub-section (4) of Section 10 may within sixty days from the date of such order, file an appeal before the High Court and subject to the decision of the High Court the orders passed by the Board of Revenue shall be final. It is relevant to note the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case where this Petitioner was the Appellant, that is, the case of Maguni Charan Dwivedi Vs. State of Orissa and Another wherein, their Lordships interpreting the words "each such person" occurring in Section 5(1) held, that the said words include the holder of the village office, so that in order to be eligible for settlement of the land with occupancy rights, he must also be in separate and actual cultivating possession of the 'Bhogra land' immediately before the appointed date. In view of principle laid down in the aforesaid decision, it was incumbent on the part of the Petitioner to establish his separate and actual cultivating possession over the disputed land immediately before the appointed date in order to succeed on his application for settlement of land. In view of principle laid down in the aforesaid decision, it was incumbent on the part of the Petitioner to establish his separate and actual cultivating possession over the disputed land immediately before the appointed date in order to succeed on his application for settlement of land. From the orders passed by the Tahasildar and the first and second appellate forums it is apparent that the authorities have considered in detail the evidence adduced in the case, both oral and documentary. They have also given reasons for preferring the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the State Government in the Works Department to the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the Petitioner. The broad probabilities of the case have also been kept in view while arriving at the conclusion indicated earlier. Further, the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner essentially relate to appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties which, I am afraid, is not within the scope of this proceeding. From the provisions of Section 13(3) quoted above it is clear that a revision lies to this Court only on a question of law. On careful consideration of the matter I fail to find any scope for interfering with the impugned orders. 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner tried to raise the question that the procedure prescribed under the Rules have not been followed in disposing of the application for settlement of the land. From the orders passed by the Tahasildar, Addl. District Magistrate and the Member. Board of Revenue it does not appear that this point was raised before any of the said forums. Therefore, the question which involves enquiry into facts cannot be entertained for the first time before this Court. 6. On the aforesaid analysis, I find no merit in this civil revision which is accordingly dismissed, but without any order for costs. Final Result : Dismissed