JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - All these six revisions arise out of identical facts and hence are disposed of by this common judgment. The Plaintiff who is the Petitioner in all these revisions brought title Suit No. 19 of 1985 against the opposite party No. 1 as the sole Defendant for declaration of his right, title and interest in the suit properties which he claimed to have fallen to his share in the previous partition, for permanent injunction restraining the said opposite party No. 1 from interfering in his peaceful possession and for recovery of possession of the lands if he is found dispossessed as also for partition of the dwelling house by constructing a partition-wall and adjustment of the backyard and the movable properties and for rendition of accounts by opposite party No. 1 since 5-1-1968 and for mesne profits, both past and future. The Plaintiff's case is that he has been throughout continuing in service outside his native place Parlakhemundi and therefore had executed a registered general power of attorney in favour of opposite party No. 1 his brother on 5-1-1968 for management of the properties. In a ceiling proceeding initiated in 1977, both the Petitioner and opposite party No. 1 had been allotted separate holdings but however opposite party No. 1 taking advantage of his absence misappropriated the properties behind his back utilizing the power of afforney. The Petitioner after his retirement when came to know the state of affairs cancelled the power of attorney on 1-11-1983 and the dispute between the parties had been referred to the well wishers at the village. But since opposite party No. 1 was not amenable to the decision of the majority of the referees which was in the Petitioner's favour he brought the suit for the aforesaid reliefs In the suit, on a petition filed by the Petitioner, the Revenue Inspector of the locality was appointed as the receiver by the learned Subordinate Judge and he took possession of the properties on 13-10-1985. Thereafter, opposite party No. 1 filed three petitions in the suit one for stay of the suit u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act, another for dismissal of the suit for non joinder of parties and the other u/s 151 IPC for discharging the receiver. Thereafter, opposite party No. 1 filed three petitions in the suit one for stay of the suit u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act, another for dismissal of the suit for non joinder of parties and the other u/s 151 IPC for discharging the receiver. The plea taken was that the suit 'B' schedule property was in the possession of his mother and after her death on 31-1-1982, the daughters, the sons and the children at the pre-deceased daughters were in possession thereof. Nothing however was stated regarding any possession of the lands by any tenant. No objection was also taken in respect of 'N' schedule lands. The petitions of opposite party No. 1 were all rejected on 10-10-1985 against which M.A. Nos. 361, 362 and 263 of 1985 were flied in this Court which were also dismissed by judgment dated 19-6-1986 Orders ware passed on 26-7-1986 by the Subordinate Judge directing the receiver to put the lands to auction for agricultural purpose for the year 1986-87 and report compliance of order before 16-8-1986 Prior to it the six persons impleaded as opposite party No. 2 in each of these revisions had filed petitions on 12-3-1986 before the court claiming themselves to be tenants in respect of the disputed lands praying for excluding their lands from the control of the receiver and permitting them to deposit the rent in Court. They again moved applications on 28-7-1986 before the Court seeking direction not to hold the auction as they had already approached the land reforms authorities to declare their tenancy right. The petitions filed on 28-7-1986 were rejected by the Subordinate judge on 7-8-1986 against which all of them filed Civil Revision No. 514/16 in this Court as Petitioners 1 to 6 along with two other persons as Petitioners 7 and 8 who had also filed petitions before the learned Subordinate judge for the very same reliefs but on different grounds and whose such petitions had also been likewise rejected. In the revision it was urged that the petitions filed by them before the learned Subordinate Judge had not been disposed of presumably because no orders had been passed by the Court on the petitions filed on 12-3-1986 to exclude the properties from the management of the receiver. In the revision it was urged that the petitions filed by them before the learned Subordinate Judge had not been disposed of presumably because no orders had been passed by the Court on the petitions filed on 12-3-1986 to exclude the properties from the management of the receiver. An order was passed by this Court on 13-8-1986 directing the Subordinate judge to dispose of the petitions and the auction of the lands was also stayed till 1-9-1986 as an interim measure. In pursuance of the order of this Court, orders were passed by the Subordinate Judge on 30-8-1986 holding, so far as opposite party No. 2 in each of the revisions are concerned that except their mere assertion that they are tenants in respect of some of the suit schedule lands, there is not even a single scrap of paper to show their tenancy but that since they had come up with a case of tenancy in the lands and had filed OLR cases u/s 15 at the OLR Act, 1960 and from the income and expenditure statement of the family it appears that the family of the Petitioners was indebted to these opposite parties and it is their case that they had given some money as security deposit for cultivation of the lands and the Petitioner had not filed any affidavit of any neighboring tenant to counter the stand, it was more proper that each of the opposite party No. 2 are allowed to continue in possession of the respective lands subject to payment at Rajbhag to the receiver already appointed. The order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge was produced before this Court and C.R. No. 514/86 was disposed of on 11-9-1986 by Hon'ble G.B. Pattnaik, J. holding, so far as opposite party No. 2 in each of these cases are concerned, that their claim of possession over the lands in question as tenants had been accepted subject to the decision of the OLR Court and necessarily therefore the properties over which they are found to be in possession cannot be put to auction though the receiver might collect Rajbhag. 2. 2. The present revisions have been filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 30-8-1988 of the learned Subordinate Judge contending that the claim of each of the opposite party No. 2 is wholly devoid of bona fides that they are persons set up by opposite party No. 1 with spurious claims of tenancy which is fortified by the fact that no such plea had been taken by opposite party No. 1 when petitions were filed by him objecting to the orders passed by the learned Subordinate Judge on 9-10-1985 and that further the plea of tenancy by each of the opposite party No. 2 is wholly misconceived since no such tenancy is entitled to be created after commencement of the O.L.R. Act. 3. So far as the plea raised by the Petitioner urging the plea raised by each of the opposite party No. 2 as merely adventurous ones, I am not prepared to interfere with the order passed in the revisional jurisdiction since if each of the opposite party No. 2 had been inducted as a tenant by opposite party No. 1 validly, then their claims may not be liable to be defeated only because of the dispute between the Petitioner and opposite party No. 1 and no exception on that count can be found in the impugned order However. I find much force in the contention that the plea of tenancy by each of the apposite party No. 2 are themselves liable to be thrown out summarily because no such tenancy could have been created after commencement of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (Act 16 of 1960), as is provided u/s 6(2) of the Act. It is the admitted case of each of the opposite party No. 2 that the tenancy was created only in 1979 A reference to the impugned order its If shows the fact that opposite party No. 2 in each case claimed tenancy only from 1979-80 and it is also conceded by Mrs. Padhi, learned Counsel appearing for each of the opposite party No. 2 that the claim of tenancy by each of the opposite party No. 2 is from 1979-80 only. Padhi, learned Counsel appearing for each of the opposite party No. 2 that the claim of tenancy by each of the opposite party No. 2 is from 1979-80 only. The fact also appears from the petitions filed by these opposite parties before the Subordinate Judge under Order 40 Rule 1(2) read with Section 151 CPC Section 6(2) of the OLR Act is a mandatory provision prohibiting transfer, after the commencement of the Act, by way of a lease of any land held by a raiyat making it void and inoperative There is hence no doubt that even if opposite party No. 1 inducted each of the opposite party No. 2 as tenants in 1979-80, they were void and inoperative transactions without creating any right in their favour. I am also completely supported in this view by an earlier decision of this Court in Sarbeswar Sargharia and Ors. v. Dibakar Panigrahi and Ors. Each opposite party No. 2 claiming tenancy only through opposite party No. 1 which is found to have actually never taken off could not have any right under the OLR Act to maintain a proceeding to declare their tenancy and hence would have been amenable to the direct ions of the Civil Court Their so called tenancy being nonest in the eye of law on the basis of their own admissions, it cannot be said that the Civil Court would lose jurisdiction to treat them as person without any right and decide appropriately. 4. It has been tenaciously urged by Mrs. 4. It has been tenaciously urged by Mrs. Padhi that even if it is held that opposite party No. 2 of each case are not tenants, yet the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is not available to be interfered with in view of the directions of this Court in Civil Revision No. 51486 referred to above wherein Hon'ble G.B. Pattnaik J. has directed them to continue as tenants subject to the decision of the OLR Court and the receiver being entitled to collect Rajbhag from them: The submission is not sound since from the order passed in Civil Revision No 514186 it does not appear that there has been any determination made by Hon'ble G.B. Pattnaik, J. regarding the statue of each of the opposite party No. 2 as tenants upon the land, but there has been merely a direction for their continuance as such on the basis of the finding recorded by the Subordinate Judge. It has been observed in the order that the claim of possession of Petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 in that case over the lands as tenants had been accepted subject to the decision of the OLR Court and necessarily therefore the property over which they have been found to be in possession cannot be put to auction The tenancy of these opposite parties has been accepted only by the Subordinate Judge and hence if a conclusion is reached now that their tenancy is in effect still-born, then there is no impediment to quash the order which declares them as tenants. Apparently, the order dated 30-8-1986, was not challenged before this Court in its revisional capacity and there is nothing in the order of Hon'ble G.B. Pattnaik, J. which puts an obstacle in this case to appropriately decide the question. 5. In the result, the revisions are allowed and the order of the learned Subordinate Judge dated 30-3-1986 is set aside. The disputed lands are not available to be kept out of the management of the receiver including auction thereof. The records be sent back to the Court below forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed