JUDGMENT : G.B. Pattnaik, J. - The order dated 14-9-1981 passed by the Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement in exercise of powers conferred u/s 15(a) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act is under challenge in this writ application. According to the Petitioner?s case, the Commissioner of land Records, opposite party No. 1, on the basis of a report submitted to him by the Sectionretary to Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Berhampur initiated a suo motu proceeding, for correction of record-of-rights u/s 15(a) of the Act Pursuant to notice issued by the Commissioner, the Petitioner appeared before him but unfortunately while disposing of the application, the Petitioner?s counsel was not held in the matter. It is also further urged that the impugned order of the Commissioner is out-come of total non-application of mind to the materials on record and as such the order cannot be sustained. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2 and detail facts have been given therein supporting the order passed by the Commissioner. Mr. Jena, appearing for one of the interveners Panchanan Dangara Majhi, opposite party No. 5 also contended that though he is in possession of a portion of the land but his name his not been recorded in the record-of-rights. In course of hearing of the petition, Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Petitioner reiterates two grounds on which he has assailed the validity of the order of the Commissioners, namely: (1) That the Petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing inasmuch as his counsel could not argue when the case was taken up for hearing. (2) The order of the Commissioner ex facie shows total non-application of mind and as such cannot be sustained. 2. So far as the first contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is concerned, though such averment has been mentioned in the writ application, we are unable to accept such a contention since the impugned order clearly states in para-2 that the argument was advanced by the counsel appearing for the present Petitioner who was opposite party before the Commissioner and in fact the Commissioner also came to a conclusion that the argument of the counsel of Mr. Agrawal has great weight. In this view of thereafter, it is difficult to up-hold the submission of Mr. Agrawal has great weight. In this view of thereafter, it is difficult to up-hold the submission of Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the Commissioner. The said contention must be accordingly rejected. 3. So far as the Sectionond submission is concerned, we find sufficient force in the same. The Commissioner himself in paragraph-3 of the impugned judgment has indicated that there is much force in the argument of the counsel for Mr. Agarwal and steps could have been taken earlier by the concerned officers to rectify the record when the record is found to be wrong. Notwithstanding the aforesaid conclusion, he has abruptly directed to correct the record-of-rights solely on the ground that there has been no settlement in favour of the Petitioner and therefore the land should be recorded in the name of Government. The conclusion of the Commissioner is based on no materials and really indicates non-application of mind to the respective cases of the parties. The contention of the aggrieved party has not at all been considered and in fact the ultimate conclusion of the Commissioner one based on no evidence or no materials. In this view of the matter, the conclusion of the Commissioner under Annexure-4 cannot be sustained and we would accordingly quash the order of the Commissioner dated 14-9-1981, Annexure-4 to the writ application. 4. So far as Mr. Jena's contention is concerned, he being an intervener, question of considering his contention at this stage by this Court does not arise. It would be open for the intervener to approach the Commissioner and the Commissioner may hear him and pass appropriate orders, if permissible under law. 5. In the net result, therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner under Annexure-4 is set aside and the case No. 2982/76 is remitted back to the Commissioner, land Records and Settlement, opposite party No. 1 to re-hear and re-dispose of the same in accordance with law. Mr. Mohanty, appearing for the Petitioner undertakes that the Petitioners will enter appearance before the Commissioner on 2-5-1989 on which date the Commissioner would fix further date of hearing in the proceeding and thereafter would proceed with the case in accordance with law and in accordance with the observations made by us earlier. The writ application is accordingly allowed but there will be no order as to costs. The writ application is accordingly allowed but there will be no order as to costs. Mr. Mohanty, appearing for the Petitioner undertakes to deposit necessary requisites for issue of writ by tomorrow. J.M. Mahapatra, J. 6. I. agree. Writ application allowed. Final Result : Allowed