JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - In this application under-Art 26 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks to quash the order cancelling lease granted in his favour under the Orissa Minor and Minerals Concession Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). 2. Case of petitioner is that he applied for lease to remove sand from River Ramial in villages Mahulpal and Rekula. Tahasildar who is the competent authority granted lease of Act. 29-75 decimals of land in the river in these two villages for removal of sand. Lease is for five years commencing from the date of lease. Against this order opp. party No. 5 preferred an appeal under Rule 29. He applied for interim stay of the order. Sub-Collector who is the appellate authority while granting stay directed that by way of interim measure, the area should be put to annual auction. Petitioner preferred a revision to the Collector under Rule 29(2). Revisional authority granted stay. However, on final hearing, the annual auction amount being much more than the lease amount dismissed the revision. On receipt of this order in revision, appellate authority confirmed the annual auction. On that basis, Tahasildar cancelled the lease. This is grievance of petitioner. 3. Mr. A. K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner approached the revisional forum against an ancillary order passed by the appellate authority. There is no scope for any order of stay being granted by the appellate authority since under the rules no such power is vested in such authority under the rules. Accordingly, revisional order ought to have been vacated and lease should have been allowed to be operated. Even if appellate authority would have ancillary power, by putting the area to annual auction sand may be exhausted, and in case appeal is dismissed petitioner cannot have the same benefit. This should have been taken into consideration. Even if the revision authority would be correct in not interfering with the order, he ought to have directed the appeal to be disposed of early. Mr Sahoo lastly submitted that during pendency of appeal, there was no scope for cancelling the lease. 4. Mr. Sahoo is not correct that appellate authority has no power to pass interim order for putting the area to annual auction. Every appellate authority has ancillary power to grant stay, unless prohibited by law. Mr Sahoo lastly submitted that during pendency of appeal, there was no scope for cancelling the lease. 4. Mr. Sahoo is not correct that appellate authority has no power to pass interim order for putting the area to annual auction. Every appellate authority has ancillary power to grant stay, unless prohibited by law. This has been clearly laid down by Supreme Court in the decision reported in in AIR 1969 SC 430 (Income Tax Officer, Cannanore v. M. K. Mohammed Khmhi). While passing order of stay appellate authority can pass such order in respect of the property as it would deem just and proper. Accordingly we are not inclined to interfere either with the ancillary order in appeal or with the revisional order. 5. Mr. Sahoo is, however, correct in his submission that before final disposal of the appeal, lease could not have been cancelled. Accordingly, we direct appellate authority to dispose of the appeal on merits after giving opportunity to parties to be heard. The appeal shall he disposed of before February, 1982. 6. Mr. Sahoo is correct in his submission that lease cannot be cancelled during pendency of the appeal. In case appeal would be dismissed, his lease would become operative. Annual auction being subject to result of appeal, such auction for one year cannot affect right of petitioner for remaining period. Accordingly, Annexure-8 is quashed. 7. In the result, writ application is allowed. Annexure-8 cancelling lease is quashed. Appellate authority is directed to hear and dispose of the appeal as directed earlier. No costs. A copy of the order shall be sent to Sub-Collector and Tahasildar at the cost of petitioner. J.M. Mahapatra, J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Allowed