JUDGMENT : G.B. Pattnak, J. - These three writ applications involve common question of law and the said question of law arises for consideration on identical facts and circumstances and, therefore, all three cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the disputed lands in question in each of the writ applications were Darmila Paik Service Inam lands and the predecessor-in-interest of opp. party No. 4 was inamdar. The Petitioners' predecessor-in-interest optained different sale deeds and lease deeds from the ancestor of the said opp. party No. 4, between the period 1926 and 1944. The estate in question vested in the State of Orissa under the provisions of the Orissa Estate Abolition act by virtue of a notification dated 1-4-1953. After the Orissa land Reforms Act (for short, O.L.R. Act') came into force in the year 1965 the opp. Party No. 4 filed two applications one u/s 14(1) and (2) of the O.L.R. Act and another u/s 26 of the O.L.R. Act. The Revenue Officer disposed of both these cases by common order dated 4-5-1948 and 1-5-1968 annexed as Annexure-1 and by the said order he directed that the arrear rent for 1986-87 not having been paid, the Petitioners should pay 5 minds of paddy or its cash equivalent at fixed Government rate by 15-5-1968, failing, which the Petitioners will be evicted from the lands as provided u/s 14(1)(c) of the O.L.R. Act. So far as the prayer for resumption is concerned and Revenue Officer directed that Ac. 1. 511/2 decimals of land from southern side of Section No. 38 of Sahaspur village will be resumed and for the said lane the fair and equitable rent had already been fixed by the O.E.A. Collector in C.C. Case No. 443 of 1961. In respect of the non-resumable land which is half of the entire schedule lands, the Revenue Officer directed that the Petitioner should pay 96 minds and 36 sears of paddy towards compensation in five annual installments or its cash equivalent at fixed Government rate, the installments having been fixed on 16-6-1968 to 16-6-1972, and it was further directed that the certificate u/s 29 of the O.L.R. Act should issue after the appeal period is over. Similar orders determining resumable and non-resumable lands were passed in other cases which are the subject-matter of dispute in O.J.C. Nos. 1559 and 1560 of 1983. In the proceeding out of which O.J.C. No. 1559 of 1983 arises the Revenue Officer directed Ac. 1-04 cents in S. No. 34 of Sahaspur village to be resumable and the rest was declaration be non-reusable for which compensation was fixed and the tenant was directed to pay compensation in 5 installments. In the other proceeding out of which O.J.C. No. 1560 of 1983 arises the Revenue Officer directed that Ac. 0.50 1/2 decimals in the said village to be resumable and the rest was declared non-resumable for which compensation was fixed and the tenant was directed to pay in 5 installments. Each of the orders of the Revenue Officer was assailed in appeal, and the appellate authority confirmed the order of the Revenue Officer and dismissed the appeals by order dated 2-6-1960. Revisions were also filed against the said appellate order, but the revisions were dismissed by order dated 3-8-1970. On filing of appeal, the appellate authority by interim order dated 14-6-1968 had stayed the operation of the order of the Revenue Officer and, therefore, the arrear rent which was to be paid by 15-6-1968 as ordered under Annexure-l was not paid. While the proceedings before the revenue authorities were being conducted in the manner as stated earlier, the Petitioners filed Title Suit No. 10 of 1967 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge for declaration that they are the occupancy tenants in respect of the lands in question under the State. The suit was dismissed on 5-9-1970 and appeal against the same was preferred to this Court which was registered as First Appeal No. 225 of 1970 and has been disposed of in the meantime the same having been allowed in part, and the decision has been reported Anand Padhan and Others Vs. Dhuba Mohanty and Others. The Opp. party No. 4 thereafter filed an application before the Revenue Officer invoking his jurisdiction u/s 65 of the O.L.R. Act with a prayer that the possession of the land be given to the opp. party No. 4 since the arrear rent had not been paid as directed by the Revenue Officer and that application was registered as O.L.R. Case No. 60 of 1979. party No. 4 since the arrear rent had not been paid as directed by the Revenue Officer and that application was registered as O.L.R. Case No. 60 of 1979. The Revenue Officer by order dated 15-7-1381 annexed as Annexure-5 came to hold that as the tenants (Petitioners in the writ applications) have failed to comply with the order of the Court relating to payment of the rent as per orders of the Revenue Officer dated 1-5-1968, the said tenants are evicted from the non-resumable portion of the land also as per the schedule given thereunder and the order will take effect with effect from 1st day of the next year, i.e., 1-4-1982. So far as the resumable portion is concerned, he also directed that the Revenue Inspector should hand over possession of the land to the landlord. So far as the arrear rent from 16-6-1967 to 1980-81 is concerned, the Revenue Officer directed that the tenants should pay within two months from the date of the order at the rate of 6 monds and 4 monds of paddy per acre for Class II and Class III lands respectively. The Petitioners being aggrieved by the said order under Annexure-5 preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer which was registered as O.L.R. Appeal No. 30 of 1981. The appellate authority disposed of the said appeal by order dated 9-8-1962 which has been annexed as Annexure-7 and confirmed the direction of the Revenue Officer regarding delivery of possession of both resumable and non-resumable lands. But so far as the directions regarding payment of bag dues for the years 1966-67 to 1980-81 are concerned, the same were modified and it was ordered that it should be paid from the year 1978-79 and payments should be made by 30-9-1382. The Petitioners then carried revisions to the Additional District Magistrate invoking his jurisdiction u/s 59 of the O.L.R. Act. The revisional authority disposed of all the revisions on a conclusion that the tenants are liable for eviction from the disputed lands and the possession has to be delivered to the landlord. Disagreeing with the order of the appellate authority with regard to the date from which the arrear rent is to be paid, the revisional authority held that it should be paid in accordance with the order of the Revenue Officer dated 15-7-1981. Disagreeing with the order of the appellate authority with regard to the date from which the arrear rent is to be paid, the revisional authority held that it should be paid in accordance with the order of the Revenue Officer dated 15-7-1981. Having held against the Petitioners on merits, the revisional authority further held that the order of the Revenue Officer u/s 65 of the O.L.R. Act is neither appealable nor revisable since the appeals and revisions were not maintainable. The said order of the revisional authority has been annexed as Annexure-9. The Petitioners thereafter have approached this Court. 3. Mr. padhi, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, does not assail the legality of the direction to deliver possession to the landlord so far as the resumable land is concerned as well as the direction regarding payment of the bhag dues for the past years is concerned, but he assails the direction so far as it relates to delivery of possession of the non-resumable land is concerned. At the outset Mr. Padhi conceded to the position that an order passed by the Revenue Officer u/s 65 of the O.L.R. Act was neither appealable nor revisable and, therefore, the Petitioners could not have invoked the jurisdiction of the appellate authority and revisional authority. But in these writ applications he assails the legality of the order of the Revenue Officer itself. According to Mr. Padhi, once the Revenue Officer determines the land in question to be non-resumable u/s 27 of the O.L.R. Act, the said non-resumable land cannot be a subject matter of all application for eviction on the ground that the arrear rent had not been paid. The learned Counsel further urged that the order of the Revenue Officer dated 1-5-1968 having been stayed by the appellate authority on 14-6-1968 the tenants could not have paid the arrear dues as directed by the Revenue Officer in his order dated 1-5-1968. Therefore, for such non-payment the Revenue Officer could hat have directed eviction of the Petitioners in exercise of powers u/s 65 of the O.L.R. Act. Mr. Therefore, for such non-payment the Revenue Officer could hat have directed eviction of the Petitioners in exercise of powers u/s 65 of the O.L.R. Act. Mr. Mohapatra, the learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 4 on the other hand contended that the Revenue Officer's order dated 1-5-1968 made it abundantly clear that if the arrear rent for 1966-67 will not be paid boy 16-6-1968 than the tenants will be evicted from the land as provided u/s 14(1)(c) of the O.L.R. Act. Notwithstanding the order of stay being passed by the appellate authority on 14-6-1968, after disposal of the said appeal on 2.6.1969 and further disposal of revision on 3-8-1970, the Petitioners were bound to pay their arrear rent, but the same not having been paid the Revenue Officer was full within his jurisdiction to implement his earlier order dated 1-5-1968 in exercise of his power u/s 65 of the O.L.R. Act and, therefore, there is no infirmity in the said order of the Revenue Officer. He further contends that notwithstanding the lands being declared to be non-resumable no certificate having been issued by the Revenue Officer u/s 29 of the O.L.R. Act the tenant does not become a raiyat u/s 30 of the Act and, therefore, the tenant is bound to pay rent for the succeeding years and accordingly there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Revenue Officer. 4. In the premises as aforesaid, the following questions arise for our consideration; (i) Whether the applications which were filed by the landlord u/s 44 of the O.L.R. Act for non-payment of arrear rent for the year 1966-67 were in respect of the entire lands or only in respect of non-resumable land, and whether the direction of the Revenue Officer on these applications relates to both resumable and non-resuulable lands or only to resumable and; and (ii) On an application being filed by the landlord for resumption and the Revenue Officer having made determination with regard to the resumable and non-resumable lands u/s 27 of the OLT Act and also further determining the compensation in respect of the non-resumable land, wnether the said non-resumable land could be again a subject-matter of execution u/s 65 of the O.L.R. Act in respect of an order that had been passed earlier u/s 14 of the O.L.R. Act. The answer to both these question would decree upon an analysis of different provisions as well as the scheme of the O.L.R. Act. 5. So far as the first question is concerned, it is undisputed that the landlord had filed an application after the O.L.R. Act came into force praying therein that the tenant has not paid the arrear rent for the year. 1966-67 and, therefore, the tenant be directed to pay the rent in question on the same being determined. That prayer obviously related to the entire tenanted land, a part of which was declared to be non-resumable latter u/s 27 of the O.L.R. Act and the said arrear rent, as determined has, also admittedly not been paid by the tenant. The direction of the Revenue Officer in the order passed on the application u/s 14 to the effect that if the arrear rent as determined is not paid then the tenant may be evicted was a direction prior to the determination of the resumable and non-resumable lands. Consequently in execution of the said direction u/s 64, the tenant cannot be evicted from the non-resumable land. 6. So far as the second question is concerned, Chapter, III of the O.L.R. Act deals with resumption of land for personal cultivation of the landlord. Section 24 which is the first Section in Chapter III starts with the expression 'notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Chapter II', and thus the provisions of Chapter III overrides the provisions of Chapter II which includes Section 14. Under the said Section 14 both the landlord and the tenant were conferred the right to the determination of the resumable and non-resumable land in accordance with the provisions of the said Chapter and u/s 25 the extent of resumable land, should not be more than one-half of the lands in respect of each tenant, measured in standard acres. Section 26 confers right both on the landlord and the tenant to make application. Under the said section the landlord has the right to make his selection and he may apply on the basis of such selection to the Revenue Officer in the prescribed form with intimation to each of his tenants for issue of a certificate specifying, separately the particulars of the resumable and non-resumable lands. Sub-section (2) of Section 25 confers a similar right upon the tenant. Sub-section (2) of Section 25 confers a similar right upon the tenant. Section 27 is the power of the Revenue Officer to determine the resumable and non-resumable lands on receipt of application from the landlord u/s 26 and u/s 28 the Revenue Officer has to determine the compensation in respect of the non-resumable land to be paid by the tenant in accordance with such direction by the Revenue Officer for the payment. Sub-section (2) of Section 27 Provides for an appeal, review or revision against the decision of the Revenue Office under Sub-section (1) of Section 27. Section 29 of the Act provides that after the disposal of the appeal, if only from the orders of the Revenue Officer u/s 27 and 28, the Revenue Officer shall take into consideration the alteration or modification, if any, in appeal and shall thereupon issue a certificate to the landlord as well as to the tenant specifying all matters determined and shall also send a copy of such certificate, to the competent authority to maintain the record-of-rights. The tenant shall with effect from the beginning of the year next following the date of the issue of the certificate u/s 29, become a raiyat and under Sub-section (2) of Section 30 the installments of the compensation amount together with interest due thereon would remain a first change on the land to which it relates one would be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue on application to the Revenue Officer by the person entitled thereto. The rent in respect of the non resumable land which is determined u/s 27 is payable, if the landlord is a raiyat or land-holder to the person under whom the landholder was holding the land and in any other case, to the immediate landholder which expression includes the State Government as provided u/s 33 of the O.L.R. Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 33 provides that arrear of revenue cases or other dues by the date certificate is issued u/s 29 in respect of the land, covered by such certificate are payable by the persons' who were liable to pay the said dues by the said date. u/s 34 tenant's right to continue in cultivation in respect of the resumable land cases from the date of expiry of the year next following the date of issue of the certificate u/s 29. u/s 34 tenant's right to continue in cultivation in respect of the resumable land cases from the date of expiry of the year next following the date of issue of the certificate u/s 29. We are not concerned with the other provisions contained in Chapter III of the O.L.T. Act. The expression tenant' has been defined u/s 2(31) to mean a person who has no right to the land of another but under any law, contract, custom or usage he personally cultivates the land on payment of rent in cash or in kind or in both; and raiyat' has been defined u/s 2(25) to mean a person who is deemed to be a raiyat under the provisions of the O.L.R. Act. Section 4 of the O.L.R. Act indicates the persons who would be deemed to be raiyat under the said Act. A combined reading of the aforesaid provisions unequivocally indicates that on an application being filed by the landlord for resumption of the tenanted land, the Revenue Officer having determined the same and indicated the extent of resumable land non-resumable lands a tenant cannot be evicted from the non-resumable land on the ground of nonpayment of rent for any previous period prior to the determination of resumable and non-resumable portion even in the so-called execution of an earlier order u/s 65 of the O.L.R. Act. It is true that in respect of the non-resumable portion he becomes a raiyat on a certificate being issued u/s 29 with effect from the beginning of the year next following to date of issue of such certificate. But the scheme of the O.L.R. Act is clear that on determining the non-resumable land as well as the campensatian payable for the same by the tenant, the landlord would be entitled to receive compensation and in the event of failure of payment of compensation in accordance with the order of the Revenue Officer the said compensation would remain a first charge on the land to which it relates and the said compensation would be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue on an application being filed before the Revenue Officer as, provided in Sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the O.L.R. Act. In our considered opinion, therefore, on determination being made by the Revenue Officer indicating the non-resumable partion of the tenanted land and simultaneously determining the compensation therefor, a landlord cannot evict the tenant from the non-resumable portion in execution of an earlier order of the Revenue Officer for any past arrear rent and the provisions of Section 14 cannot have any application to a land which have been determined t be non-resumable land. In this view of the matter, the Revenue Officer as well as the appellate authority and the revisional authority committed grass, error in directing eviction of the Petitioners tenants from the non-resumable portion of the land for non-campliance of the earlier order of the Revenue Officer relating to payment of rent for the year 1966-67 in his order dated 1-5-1968. Consequently the order of the Revenue Officer under Annexure-5, the appellate order under Annexure-7 and the revisional order under Annexure-9 directing the tenant to cease caltivation and requiring the Revenue Inspector to hand over possession to the land lord in respect of the non-resumable portion of the land which had been determined earlier are without jurisdiction and are hereby quashed. The writ applications are accordingly allowed but in the circumstances there would be no order as to costs. J.M. Mahapatra, J. I agree. 7. Writ applications allowed. Final Result : Allowed