JUDGMENT : A.K. Padhi, J. - The Petitioner assaits the orders of the authority under the Orissa land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the O.L.R. Act') declaring Ac. 18.49 1/2 decimals of land as surplus. 2. A suo motu proceeding was started against the Petitioner u/s 41 of the O.L.R. Act. On receiving notice the Petitioner appeared and filed his objection. In the objection petition the Petitioner asserted that on 2-5-1970 there had been a family settlement and in pursuance to the said amicable partition under the family settlement, the Petitioner and the sons who were married and major before partition are all living separately and as such all of them are entitled to one ceiling. The sons also prayed to exclude their properties from the ceiling proceeding against their father. 3. The learned Revenue Officer disbelieved the partition and held that the Petitioner has Ac. 18.49 1/2 decimals of ceiling surplus land. The same order by the Revenue Officer were confirmed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority. 4. The main plank of argument of the learned advocate for the Petitioner is that u/s 37(b) of the O.L.R. Act the O.L.R. authorities are required to enquire as to whether there was separation among the father and sons by partition or otherwise before 25th day of September, 1970. The learned revisional Court has committed an error of law by discarding the deed of partition only on the ground that the same was not registered. For the above submission the learned advocate for the Petitioner relies on the decisions reported in 63 (1983) CLT 463 Sankarsan Misra and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors. and Biranchi Mahakud and Others Vs. Revenue Officer and Others, Admittedly the deed of partition though was not registered was admissible for collateral purpose. The learned revisional Court who was a fact finding Court has not given any categorical finding as to whether the Petitioner and his sons were in fact separated by parthian or otherwise before the due date and were major and married before the due date i.e. 26-9-1970. 5. In Sankarsan Misra and Others Vs. State of Orissa and Others, and Debendra Nanda Goswami and Others etc. Vs. 5. In Sankarsan Misra and Others Vs. State of Orissa and Others, and Debendra Nanda Goswami and Others etc. Vs. State of Orissa and Others, it has been held that the O.L.R. authorities are to look into, the materials on record and also the unregistered deed of partition to give a finding as required u/s 37(b) of the Act regarding the separation of the family by partition or otherwise. 6. After giving our anxious consideration to the facts of this case and the findings of the revisional Court which is a final fact finding Court, we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice the order of the revisional Court should be quashed and the matter should be remitted to the revisional authority to consider the materials on record and to give a finding as to whether the Petitioner and his sons were separated by partition or otherwise and were major and married before the due date i.e. 26-9-1970. 7. In the result, the writ application is allowed, Annexure-4, the order of the revisional authority is quashed and the matter is remitted to the revisional authority, opposite party No. 3 for fresh disposal keeping in mind the observations made by us above and in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. G.B. Pattnaik, J. 8. I agree. Writ application allowed. Final Result : Allowed