JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - This revision has been filed against an order allowing amendment of the plaint. The suit was filed in 1978 for declaration of title, confirmation of possession, permanent injunction and correction of record-of-rights. The assertions in the plaint were that the father of the Plaintiff-opp-parties was the tenant in respect of the land before 1944 in which year permanent lease of the land was granted by the Defendants in favour of Plaintiffs accepting their tenancy and they continued as tenants thereafter. After vesting of the estate their names were submitted as tenants in the tenants ledger, their names were registered in the Government Tenancy Ledger and the rent Roll and Rent was accepted from them by the State. In 1968 behind their back, the Tahasildar in O.E.A. Lease Case No. 1571 of 1968 settled the land in favour of the Defendants who were the intermediaries. The Petitioners however continued in possession and subsequently filed a review against the order of the Tahasildar which was rejected on 31-1-1978 and thereafter the record-of-rights was published in favour of the Defendants-Petitioners on 10-3-1976. 2. After the filing of the suit the locality was brought under consolidation operation and orders were passed in favour of the Petitioners u/s 12 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 for the sake of brevity, the Consolidation Act. 3. The Petitioners filed a petition u/s 4(4) of the Consolidation Act seeking an order of abatement of the suit. The opposite parties thereafter filed the petition for amendment of the plaint to include a pleading that the order of the Consolidation authority being based on the void order of the Tahasildar in the lease case, is without jurisdiction inoperative and void, and to add two more prayers, (a) that the order of the O.E.A. Collector in the O.E.A. Lease Case was without jurisdiction and (b) the order of the Consolidation Officer, being exclusively based upon the orders of the O.E.A. Collector, is without jurisdiction. Such prayer for amendment being allowed, the Defendants have preferred this revision. 4. Evidently the petition for amendment was filed to include pleadings and reliefs of such nature so as to avoid abatement of the suit. Hence, it is to be seen as to what extent if such amendment is allowed the Plaintiffs would succeed in retaining the jurisdiction of the civil court. 4. Evidently the petition for amendment was filed to include pleadings and reliefs of such nature so as to avoid abatement of the suit. Hence, it is to be seen as to what extent if such amendment is allowed the Plaintiffs would succeed in retaining the jurisdiction of the civil court. It would have been proper for the learned Munsif to have taken both the amendment petition as well as the petition u/s 4(4) of the Consolidation Act and that having not been done, the order has resulted by passing the question of abatement. If the suit is to otherwise abate on its original pleadings, then the proposed amendments would not save the abatement. The question whether the Orissa Estate Abolition Collector acted without jurisdiction in settling the land by way of lease in favour of the Defendants is one which can also be decided by the consolidation authorities. A settlement made under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act under Sections 6 and 7 thereof is not a lease freshly granted but is a deemed settlement by fiction of the statute. Grant of fresh lease to intermediaries is not contemplated under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. Such leases are granted under a set of executive instructions to those intermediaries who had failed to make applications under Sections 6 and 7 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act in time as also to other persons. They are thus not statutory settlement but are administrative acts of the Estate Abolition Collector. The plea of the Plaintiffs that they being tenants upon the land before vesting were to continue as such after the vesting and that the Government could not lease out the land, it being not free for any further settlement, is a question which is not beyond the purview of the consolidation authorities, though however in a suit for injunction, the civil court may have to go into the question also. It is also not within the competence of the civil court to declare an order of the consolidation authorities u/s 12 of the Consolidation Act as without jurisdiction, merely because it is based upon a void order of the Orissa Estate Abolition Collector. It is also not within the competence of the civil court to declare an order of the consolidation authorities u/s 12 of the Consolidation Act as without jurisdiction, merely because it is based upon a void order of the Orissa Estate Abolition Collector. Even if the fact alleged by the Plaintiffs would have been true, yet the order of the consolidation authority would not be without jurisdiction but may at best be an illegal or improper order which is available to be varied by the higher forums provided under the Consolidation Act. The civil court would have no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the decisions of the consolidation authorities and declare those as without jurisdiction. 5. In this view of the matter it must be held that the learned Munsif has exercised jurisdiction with material irregularity. If the suit is otherwise to abate then the proposed amendments would not arrest the process. 6. The order allowing the amendment is quashed and the petition is remanded back to the learned Munsif for fresh decision along with the petition filed by the Petitioners for abatement of the suit on which I do not want to express any opinion at this stage. It is however made clear that the proposed amendment regarding the jurisdiction authorities to pass the order is rejected. The civil revision is accordingly allowed. There would be no order as to costs of the consolidation. Final Result : Allowed