JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing order of the Board of Revenue passed u/s 59(2) of the Orissa land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). 2. Petitioner is a land-holder. Alleging that he holds land beyond the ceiling are, a proceeding was initiated u/s 41 of the Act on 9-7-1975 for determining the ceiling surplus lands in his hand. Draft statement was prepared on 17-8-1975 which was confirmed on 21-11-1975. Against the said order, an appeal u/s 44 of the Act was filed by the Petitioner on 3-12-1975 which was dismissed on 19-6-1976 as barred by limitation. Within 11 days of disposal of the appeal on 30-6-1976 Ac. 22.15 decimals of land out of 35 acres 75 decimals held to be ceiling surplus was distributed by the Revenue Officer in exercise of the powers u/s 51 of the Act treating the same to have vested in the State Government as surplus land. Petitioner filed a revision against the appellate order within the time prescribed which was allowed by the revisional authority on 15-4-1977 directing the appellate authority to hear the appeal on merits. Appellate authority being satisfied that determination of the surplus area requires consideration, directed the Revenue Officer to again consider the matter. Revenue Officer modified the statement after hearing. In place of 11.48 stand red acres equal to 35 acres 75 decimals, it determined the surplus land to be 1972 standard acres equal to 7 acres. 421/2 decimals. Accordingly, he issued notice to Petitioner to deliver the aforesaid land as specifically stated in Annexure-1 dated 24-8-1979 as provided in Section 45-A of the Act. Petitioner asserts that he has already delivered possession of those 7 acres and 42 1/2 decimals as per Annexure-1. 3. About seven months thereafter, Collector, Ganjam made a motion on 15-3-1980 to the Board of Revenue u/s 59(2) at the Act that in view of the decision of this Court in O.J.C. No. 867 of 1976, persons to whom the surplus lands had been distributed would not be bound by the order passed against them and accordingly, the appellate order after remand and the order of the Revenue Officer modifying the statement and reducing the area of the surplus land ought to be revised. On the basis of the aforesaid motion Board of Revenue has revised and set aside the appellate order and order of the Revenue Officer directing the latter to make a fresh enquiry after impeding the third parties concerned meaning the person in whose favour the different areas have been settled. 4. Short question for consideration in this case is the correctness of the direction of Board of Revenue requiring that persons to whom lands have been distributed to be heard. Some such persons have appeared in this writ application to support the order of the Board of Revenue. 5. Mr. P.K. Misra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that u/s 45, surplus and vests in the State Government from the date the statement becomes final u/s 44(3) where under the draft, statement as confirmed or modified in appeal or revision, if any, is to be published in the manner and for the period prescribed and on the expiry of the period it shall be final. When the revisional authority had set aside the appellate order and directed the appeal to be heard on merits, the confirmed statement could not have become final u/s 45. Therefore, the surplus Land as held by the Revenue Officer not having become final, land held to be surplus did not vest in the State Government and distribution of such land u/s 51 is a nullity. Mr. Mishra relied upon the decisions of this Court reported in ILR (1977) Cut. 334 Naresh Chandra Tripathy v. Revenue Officer-cum-Addl. Tahasildar, Angul and Ors. ILR (1985) Cut. 439 Jagannath Kar Vs. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Cuttack and Others, in support of his contention that persons to whom surplus and had been distributed are not necessary to be made parties. 6. Mr. S.K. Das, learned Counsel for the persons to whom land has been distributed submitted that land having been distributed to them, they are required to be heard in the matter and in any case, Petitioner is not aggrieved if they are heard since at some stage or other they would have to be heard before cancellation of the order of distribution in their favour. 7. 7. Question raised in this writ application were never raised before the Board of Revenue which decided the revision relying upon the unreported decision in O.J.C. No. 857 of 1976 decided on 21-9-1978 Parsuram Sahu v. Revenue Officer Nuapada Earlier decision of this Court reported in ILR (1977) Cut. 434 (supra) it has been held that decision in O.J.C. No. 867 of 1976 (supra) is to be continued to the fact of that case since the principle decided therein is not consistent with the principle in the earlier reported decision. ILR (1977) Cut. 334 (supra) has been followed in Harihar Panda and Others Vs. State of Orissa and Others, and Jagannath Kar Vs. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Cuttack and Others, Besides, in 56 (1981) CLT 463 Sankarsan Misra and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors. it has been held that distribution if made or possession if given, on the basis of such distribution, the same shall be subject to the ultimate decision in the matter. 8. Board of Revenue has no suo motu power of revision u/s 59(2) of the Act. It can rise to the occasion only on a motion being made by the Collector or land Reforms Commissioner. In this case, Collector had made a motion to revise the appellate order and order of Revenue Officer. Although the revision had been decided directing, the appellate authority to hear the appeal on merits after distribution, such order has not been sought to be revised. Accordingly, the order has become final. Board of Revenue has not taken into consideration the fact that Revisional authority had not heard the persons to whom land had been distributed, Again Petitioner daims that he has given possession of only 7 acres 42 1/2 decimals as required u/s 45-A of the Act after order of the Revenue Officer. Thus, it is to be examined whether possession of the 22 acres 15 decimals of land distributed has been given to those persons by the Revenue Officer after taking possession u/s 45-A which would have relevance in deciding whether those persons would be required to be heard when distribution itself has become a nullity. Thus, it is to be examined whether possession of the 22 acres 15 decimals of land distributed has been given to those persons by the Revenue Officer after taking possession u/s 45-A which would have relevance in deciding whether those persons would be required to be heard when distribution itself has become a nullity. Board of Revenue also is required to consider whether the precedents as provided in Section 51 has been followed to examine the effect of not observing such precedence on the distribution to consider whether those persons in such circumstances would be necessary to be heard at any stage at all. In view of non-consideration of the aforesaid questions, order of Board of Revenue suffers from error of law apparent on the face of record and is liable to be quashed with a direction to reconsider the revision afresh. 9. In the result, order of the Board of Revenue (Annexure-3) is quashed and it is directed to hear the revision afresh. There shall be no order as to costs. Requisites for issue of writ to the Board of Revenue shall be filed by tomorrow. V. Gopalaswamy, J. 10. I agree. Petition allowed. Final Result : Allowed