JUDGMENT : G.B. Pattnaik, J. - Since both these writ applications involve a common question of law with regard to interpretation of some provisions of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The order passed by the Additional Settlement Officer (opp. party No. 3) in exercise of his power u/s 22(2)(a) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") is under challenge in these writ applications. The question for consideration is whether in exercise of suo motu power u/s 22(2)(a) of the Act, the Settlement Officer can revise any Record-of-Rights prepared under Chapter-III. Mr. Pal appearing for the petitioners contends that preparation of Record-of-Rights is provided for in Chapter-Ill of the Act containing Sections 11 to 17 and u/s 15, the Board of Revenue has the power of suo motu revision for correction of any Record-of-Rights. The suo motu power of the Settlement Officer u/s 22(2)(a) occurs in Chapter-IV retating to settlement of rent and, therefore, in exercise of said power it is not permissible to correct any Record-of-Rights. According to Mr. Pal, therefore, the initiation of a proceeding for correction of Record-of-Rights is without jurisdiction. The learned counsel appearing for opp. party No. 4, on the other hand, contends that Section 36(1)(b) of the Act provides for simultaneous preparation of Record-of-Rights and settlement of rent and since the Government has passed an order to that effect and it has been simultaneously done, there would be no lack of jurisdiction with the Settlement Officer in exercising his suo motu power u/s 22(2)(a). The learned counsel further urges that Rule 59 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') clearly indicates that where an order has been made under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 36 of the Act, then there shall be preparation of Record-of-Rights and settlement of rent in accordance with the provisions of Chapters-Ill and IV of the Act and Sub-rule (c) of Rule 59 clearly indicates applicability of Sections 21 and 22 of the Act and Rules 26 and 27 of the Rules to these proceedings and the proviso makes an application u/s 22 (2)(b) to be treated as an appeal u/s 12-A of the Act. 3. 3. In view of the rival submissions made at the Bar, the first question that arises for consideration is whether against a preliminary publication of draft Record-of-Rights u/s 12, there can be a suo motu revision to the Board u/s 15 of the Act, as contended by Mr. Pal appearing for the petitioners. The answer to the aforesaid question must be in the negative, as u/s 15, the Board of Revenue of its own motion can direct the revision of any Record-of-Rights or any portion of a Record-of-Rights at any time alter the date of final publication u/s 12-B. Therefore, against the preliminary publication u/s 12, the power of suo mow revision cannot be exercised by the Board. Consequently, the first submission of Mr. Pal must be held to be without any substance. 4. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the suo motu power of the Settlement Officer u/s 22(2)(a) being in Chapter-IV relating to the settlement of rent, can the Settlement Officer exercise that power even in respect of the preliminary publication of draft Record-of-Rights. No doubt, Section 22(2)(a) if considered bereft of other provisions, then the only conclusion that is possible is that it relates to settlement of rent. But when the aforesaid provision is read together with Section 36(a)(b) of the Act and Rule 59(c) of the Rules there cannot be any manner of doubt that the suo motu power u/s 22(2)(a) can be exercised even in respect of publication of draft Record-of-Rights where the simultaneous proceeding has been taken for preparation of Record-of-Rights and for settlement of rent. It would be appropriate for us to extract the provisions of Section 36(1)(b) of the Act and Rule 59(c) of the Rules in extenso : "36. Simultaneous proceedings : (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Chapters II, III, and IV, the Government may make an order directing that proceedings relating to - (a).................. (b) preparation of record-of-rights and settlement of rent; ................." Rule 59(c) reads thus : "59. Simultaneous proceedings : (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Chapters II, III, and IV, the Government may make an order directing that proceedings relating to - (a).................. (b) preparation of record-of-rights and settlement of rent; ................." Rule 59(c) reads thus : "59. Simultaneous Proceedings relating to preparation of record-of Rights and settlement of rent: Where an order has been made under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 36, there shall be the preparation of Record-of-Rights and settlement of rent in accordance with the provisions of Chapters III and IV of the Act and the rules made thereunder as modified in the manner and to the extent required by the following further rules of procedure herein specified namely : (a) ...... ........... ............ (b) ...... ........... ............ (c) Proceedings relating to publication of the combined draft record-of-rights and Settlement Rent Roll, filing of objections to any entry therein or omission therefrom, disposal of such objections, revision of rent by the Assistant Settlement Officer, sanction of the settled rent and modification of orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer by the Settlement Officer shall be carried on in accordance with provisions of Sections. 21 and 22 and Rules 26 and 27 : Provided that an application under Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 22 shall be deemed to be an appeal u/s 12-A and no separate appeal shall lie under the said section. .........." On a combined reading of the aforesaid provisions, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that in a case where there has been a simultaneous enquiry for preparation of record-of-rights and for settlement of rent, as in the present case, a suo motu revision can be entertained by the Settlement Officer u/s 22(2)(a) of the Act. In this view of the matter, the initiation of the proceeding cannot be said to be without jurisdiction, as contended by Mr. Pal. 5. In the net result, therefore, both the writ applications fail and are dismissed, but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. D.M. Patnaik, J. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed