JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - The Petitioners were the opposite patties in a revision case before the Commissioner of Consolidation against the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation confirming the order of the Consolidation Officer in which a settlement? entry of 1970 recording the land in fay-our of the Petitioners was confirmed and the objection of the opposite parties was over-ruled. The revision having been allowed, the Petitioners have moved this Court under Articles, 226 and 221 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order. 2. The case of the opposite party No. 1 was that the lands, 88 decimals in extent had been purchased by him by a registered sale deed on 16-1-1945 and since he was an outsider remaining away from the village where the lands are situate, he had entrusted the lands to the care of Adhikari Naik, the husband of the Petitioner No. 1 and father of the Petitioners 2 and 3 for management. Adhikari Naik bad engaged bhag tenants was collecting bhag dues and was paying the same to the opposite party No. 1, but however during the settlement operations, taking advantage of the absence of the opposite party No. 1 had got the land recorded in his favour. The R. O. R. was finally published in 1970 and Adhikari Naik stopped payment of bhag dues since 1974. The opposite party No. 1 thus filed objection in the consolidation proceedings claiming that Adhikari Naik being a person without any title to the land had been wrongly recorded in respect of it and hence in the land register the plots should be recorded in his name. 3. Contesting the objection of the opposite party No. 1, it was contended by Adhikari Naik and after him by the present Petitioners that Adhikari Naik was managing the lands of the opposite party No. 1 and was paying bhag dues? since 1945 to 1957 when he contracted with the .opposite party No. 1 for purchase of the land and for the purpose paid him a sum of Rs. 2,4001- but however since the opp. party No. 1 did not execute any sale deed, Adhikari did not pay him any bhag dues thereafter and since then has been himself paying rent for the land and was also enjoying the usufructs. 4. 2,4001- but however since the opp. party No. 1 did not execute any sale deed, Adhikari did not pay him any bhag dues thereafter and since then has been himself paying rent for the land and was also enjoying the usufructs. 4. The learned Commissioner of Consolidation while setting aside the orders of the Consolidation Officer arid of the Deputy Director, came to hold that the R. O. R. prepared in 1970 could not either create a new title or extinguish the title of the opposite party No. 1 and since the Petitioners never put forward any plea of adverse possession at any time prior to the pendency of the case in appeal before the Deputy Director, it must be held that the plea had not been substantiated and that in view of the admitted title of the opposite party No. 1 the land must be recorded in his name. In coming to such conclusion, the Commissioner also held that since it was admitted by the Petitioners that bhag dues were being paid till 1957 and the R. O. R. was published in 1970 which must have been finalised before 1969 by which, time adverse possession, if any, of the Petitioners against the opposite party No. 1 could not have matured to create a .title in their favour by prescription the settlement entry was a wrong one. Coming to such conclusion the learned Commissioner directed that the lands should be recorded in the mime of the opposite party No. 1 with a note of adverse possession of Adhikari Naik since 1974 and thereafter of the Petitioners as it was the case of the opposite party No. 1 that the Petitioners were not paying bhag dues since 1974. 5. The sole submission made by Mr. M. N. Das, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners challenging the order of the Commissioner is that as the R. O. R. published in 1970 had become final, the consolidation authorities are bound by it and having no jurisdiction to correct the same the order of the Commissioner is without jurisdiction. 6. For such submission Mr. Das places reliance on Section 51 (1) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of land. Act, 1972 (for short the Act) which runs as follows: 51. 6. For such submission Mr. Das places reliance on Section 51 (1) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of land. Act, 1972 (for short the Act) which runs as follows: 51. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, but subject to the provisions contained in Clause 3 of Section 4 and Sub-section (1) of Section 7: (1) All questions relating to right, title, interest and liability in land lying in the consolidation area, except those coming within the jurisdiction of Revenue Courts or authorities under any local law for the time being in force shall be decided under the provisions of this Act by the appropriate authority during the consolidation operations;and xx xx.. xx It is contended by Mr. Das that the Consolidation Officer has authority to decide question relating to right, title, interest and liability in respect of the land within the consolidation area except such right, title, interest and liabilities which come within the jurisdiction of the:Revenue Courts or authorities under the local law. On such premises it is urged by him that the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to assume the functions of the Settlement Officers in respect of the proceedings of settlement which have already taken place and hence the settlement entries which have become final cannot.. De corrected by the consolidation authorities. 7. The submissions ate fallacious. Apart from the question whether consolidation authorities exercise the functions of the Settlement Officers under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 and whether acting as such Settlement Officers they can change the entries in the R. O. R., it is undisputed that the authorities under the Act are also the substituted functionaries for the Civil Courts for deciding all questions relating to right, title and interest in any land. While u/s 4 (4) of the Act all pending litigations before a Civil Court for declaration of right or interest in land abate, u/s 51 (2) the Civil Courts are barred to entertain any such litigation. The function is taken over by the consolidation authorities both for -the preparation of the R. O. R. as also for decision on the question relating to right, title and interest in the land. The function is taken over by the consolidation authorities both for -the preparation of the R. O. R. as also for decision on the question relating to right, title and interest in the land. They combine in themselves the dual functions of the settlement authorities under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act as also the functions of the Civil Courts Section 10 (1) of the Act vests power in the Assistant Consolidation Officer to dispose of all the objections relating to right, title and interest in the land by conciliation amongst the parties and when such conciliation cannot be achieved, the objections are referred to the Consolidation Officer who shall decide the same. Section 13 (4) provides that the R. O. R. prepared by the Consolidation authorities on the basis of the land register prepared by them shall be deemed for all intents and purposes to have ?been? prepared under the provisions of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 provided that they are published in the same manner as required by Section 22 (2) of the Act and the extracts of the R.O.R. are supplied to the land owners simultaneously with the publication. Section 22 (4) also makes the same provision in declaring that the map and the R. O. R. published u/s 22 (2) subject to the alternation:; and modifications, are to be deemed to have been prepared under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act. 8. It is well known that the Civil Courts can go behind the settlement entries and determine the right, title and interest of any party in respect of the land. The entries by themselves either do not create title or extinguish it and hence it is always open to the Civil Courts to find the real holder of the title despite any entries in settlement papers. The learned Commissioner on an analysis of the records came to the conclusion that in view of the admitted title of the opposite party No. 1 the Petitioners could only succeed on the basis of establishing an adverse title which he found to have been not at all proved. As a matter of fact, the Petitioners never took up such a plea at any time before the matter came in appeal before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. As a matter of fact, the Petitioners never took up such a plea at any time before the matter came in appeal before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The question of perfection of title by adverse possession is primarily a question of fact which has been found against the Petitioners. There is no error apparent on the face of the record in reaching such finding and no such contention has also been raised by Mr. Das. The only challenge as has been noticed above, is on the ground of ?lack of jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities to change the R. O. R., which is not tenable. In that view of the matters it cannot be said that there is any infirmity in the revisional order which needs to be set aside in a certiorari proceeding. 9. Even if the consolidation authorities would be exercising only powers of the Settlement Officers, yet as an absolute proposition of law it cannot be contended that such authorities would not have jurisdiction to change the R. O. R. It is the very purpose of settlement proceedings, in which a new R. O. R. comes into existence, is to examine the existing R. O. R. and change it whereever it becomes so necessary. There cannot be as such any challenge to the jurisdiction of the Settlement Officer to change the previous settlement entries. Whether such a change is justifiable or not is another question but however certainly not one relating to the jurisdiction. . 10. In the result, the writ application has no, merit and is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances; there shall be no order as to costs. G.B. Patnaik, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed