JUDGMENT : G.B. Pattnaik, J. - The order of the Consolidation Commissioner dated 31-10- 1984, annexed as Annexure-5 the subject- matter of challenge in this writ application. By the said impugned order the Consolidation Commissioner has set aside the orders passed in Objection Case No. 1305/102 as well as the order passed in Objection Case No. 32/10 and has directed that eight annas interest in the joint family property should be given to opposite party No. 1. The aforesaid order was passed under the following circumstances. After stating facts and submissions to the Court, it is held : 4. From the facts alleged and the orders produced in this proceeding, the following admitted facts emerge. Opposite party No. 1 had eight annas interest in the joint family properties and there was an amicable partition in which the said eight annas interest of opp. party No. 1 had been carved out. Opp. party No. 1 had executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners in respect of the lands which he had obtained by virtue of the amicable partition between himself and his brother. Though the Land Register in respect of the said eight annas interest stood recorded in the name of opp. party No. 1, but on objection being filed by the petitioners the consolidation authority directed deletion of the name of opp. party No. 1 and recorded the entire lands in the name of petitioner No. 1. The said order was not challenged by way of appeal or revision though appeal and revision were provided under the statute. Even though the entire lands which had fallen to the share of opp. party No. 1 stood recorded in the name of petitioner No. 1. as stated earlier, but subsequently, on an application being filed u/s 15, the consolidation authority directed half of the said lands to be recorded in the name of opp. party No. 1 and that order also became final as the revision filed against the same by the petitioners was held to be not maintainable. Subsequently, the aforesaid order directing half interest of opposite party No. 1 in the disputed lands was also reflected while allotting the Chaka on objection u/s 18(2) of the Act being filed by opp. party No. 1 and that order also became final as the revision filed against the same by the petitioners was held to be not maintainable. Subsequently, the aforesaid order directing half interest of opposite party No. 1 in the disputed lands was also reflected while allotting the Chaka on objection u/s 18(2) of the Act being filed by opp. party No. 1 subsequent to the publication of the provisional consolidation scheme and the order of the consolidation authority in the objection u/s 18(2) of the Act filed by opp. party No. 1 also became final. 5. In the aforesaid premises, the question for consideration is whether opp party No, 1 could still invoke the suo motu jurisdiction of the Commissioner u/s 37(1) and whether the Commissioner could have at at) entertained an o application in exercise of his power u/s 37(1) and could have nullified the orders passed by the consolidation authorities on a finding that the original sate deed was invalid and inoperative being vitiated by fraud and coercion and did not convey any title to the petitioners. Our answer to the aforesaid question is in the negative. The paremceters of the power of the Commissioner u/s 37(1) and the circumstances under which the said power can be invoked and exercised have now been considered in several cases of this Court, in the case of Nikunja Kishore Das and Ors. v. Consolidation Officer and Anr. 66(1938) CLT 182 a Bench of this Court on consideration of the scheme of the Act as well as the different provisions of the Act came to the conclusion that the power provided u/s 14 of the Act would apply to all persons who claim interest in the land and who might or ought to have filed objection to the draft notification issued under the Act and objections not having been filed at the appropriate stage, the power u/s 37 could not be exercised under normal circumstances. The said question again came up for consideration recently before a Bench of this Court in the case of Modern Fabricators, firm and Others Vs. Rajendra Harichandan and Others, to which one of us (brother Pasayat, J. ) was a party. The said question again came up for consideration recently before a Bench of this Court in the case of Modern Fabricators, firm and Others Vs. Rajendra Harichandan and Others, to which one of us (brother Pasayat, J. ) was a party. Having considered the object and scope and the legislative intention, it was held in the aforesaid case that Section 37 was intended to further the interest of justice and was not intended to act as a camouflage to get over statutory bars and prohibitions. It wa3 also held that the Commissioner if finds that there were genuine grounds for non-prosecution of the remedies available under the statute and it is necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of law to exercise his power u/s 37, then the power could be exercised, but it should not be exercised in a routine manner to re-provide the remedy which had been statutory taken away or restricted. It was also held in the aforesaid case that in a given case whether power u/s 37 of the Act could be exercised or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons for which the statutory remedies could not be availed of. But a word of Caution has been indicated therein that the said power should be exercised with care, caution and circumspection and the rigours imposed by the statute should not be obliterated. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid two Cases the facts and circumstances of the present case, as indicated earlier, we have no hesitation to conclude that opposite party No. 1 was not entitled to invoke the power of revision of the Commissioner u/s 37of (1) the Act and the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to exercise his suo motu power u/s 37(1) of the Act and nullify the orders passed by the consolidation authority which have become final by not being assailed in any higher forum by opp. party No. 1. In the aforesaid premises, we hold that the order of the Consolidation Commissioner is without jurisdiction and we accordingly quash the said order which has been annexed as Annexure 5. But we make it clear that the order that has been passed by the Consolidation Officer in favour of opp. party No. 1 in Objection Case No. 32/10 must be given effect to and the right of opp. But we make it clear that the order that has been passed by the Consolidation Officer in favour of opp. party No. 1 in Objection Case No. 32/10 must be given effect to and the right of opp. party No. 1 declared therein is not to be tampered with in any manner notwithstanding the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer passed in objection Case No. 1305/102. This writ application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid directions and observations. There will, however, be no order as to costs. A. Pasayat, J. I agree. Final Result : Allowed