JUDGMENT : D.M. Patnaik, J. - The petitioner assails the order of the Tahasildar, Kendrapara, in Touzi Misc.Case No. 255 of 1986, annexed as Annexure-12, recording the disputed land in the name of opp. party No. 4 measuring Ac. 1. 17 decimals under plot Nos. 1947, 1948 and 1946 of Khata No. 282 in mouze Gulasing in the district of Kendrapara, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The admitted case of the parties is that the land was endowed in 1931 in favour of the religious institution, namely, Samadhi Matha Mahant Biswakeshan Hamanuja Das of Puri. The land being an intermediary interest vested on 18-3-1974 under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). It is the case of the petitioner that the said Mahant executed a 'Chirasthai Patta' in the Sal' 1352 in favour of one Krushna Chandra Patra and delivered possession. The latter in his turn sold the land to the petitioner by registered sale deed dated 7-9-1963 and also delivered possession. The petitioner got himself mutated in the revenue records and paid rent under Annexure-10. On vesting of the land with the Government by notification dated 18-3-1974, the Mahant submitted Ekpadia in his name and consequently, the petitioner's name was entered in the tenancy ledger and thereafter the petitioner continued to pay rent. It is his further case that in major Settlement, 1965, during the Khanapuri operation under Yaddast No. 352, his possession was noted. When the Consolidation operation started in that area, the land register was prepared in the name of the petitioner with the three plots converted to a single plot bearing No. 2214, but the area was reduced to Ac. 1.10 decimals and accordingly, the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 28-11-1980 directed for recording the name of the petitioner in respect of that reduced area and the remaining area of Ac. 0.07 decimals of land was recorded as "road'. But the revenue authorities, for reasons best known to them, did not accept rent from the petitioner for which the petitioner filed Misc. Case No. 344 of 1993 under Annexure-6, purported to be one under Sections. 6 and 7 of the Act. 0.07 decimals of land was recorded as "road'. But the revenue authorities, for reasons best known to them, did not accept rent from the petitioner for which the petitioner filed Misc. Case No. 344 of 1993 under Annexure-6, purported to be one under Sections. 6 and 7 of the Act. After observing all formalities with regard to publication of notice and report of the R.I. et cetera, the Tahasildar by his order dated 9-2-1994 assessed rent for the land and submitted the record to me S. D. O. for confirmation. the petitioner also paid rent up to 1994-95 under Annexure-11 series. It is his further case that on 1-11-1992, ten petitioner came to know that the land had been recorded in the name of opp. party No. 4 in Tauzi Misc. Case No. 255 of 1986 in the Court, of the Additional Tahasildar, Kendrapara, vide Annexure 12. After knowing this the petitioner filed Reveneue Misc. Case No 2 of 1992 in the Court of the Sub-Collector, Kendrapara, challenging the order dated 9-2-1987. The said Misc. Case was allowed by the Sub Collector and the said order of the Additional Tahasilder was set aside. This order of the Sub-Collector was challenged by opp, party No. 4 before this Court in 0. J. C. No. 947 of 1994. This Court while allowing the writ application by order dated 19-12-1994 held that the Sub-Collector had no jurisdiction to annul the order of the Additional Tahasildar. Since by virtue or the order of this Court, the order of the Additional Tahasildar in Annexure-12 still remained in force, the petitioner has challenged the same in this writ petition stating that the order is illegal having not been passed under any of the provisions of the Act and further that the order was without any supporting material. 3. The contesting opp. party No. 4, on the other hand, in his counter put forth a case that the Mahant executed a 'Chirasthai' Patta in his favour on 15-7-1942 and since then he has been in possession of the land on the basis of the said Patta. He claims that because of his title and possession, he has been rightly recorded in the Tauzi Misc. Case No. 255 of 1986 by the Additional Tahasildar. Opp. He claims that because of his title and possession, he has been rightly recorded in the Tauzi Misc. Case No. 255 of 1986 by the Additional Tahasildar. Opp. party No. 4 denied of any Chirasthai Patta in favour of Krushna Chandra Patr3 and also denied of any sale of Krushna Chandra to the petitioner, as claimed. 4. The Tahasildar (opposite party No. 2) has filed a counter which is in no way helpful in disposing of this writ petition since the facts stated in the writ petition, as already mentioned above, have not been controverted and so much so there is no mention of the impugned order dated 9-2-1987 of the Additional Tahasildar. 5. Heard Mr. Ashok Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N.C. Pati, learned counsel for opp. party No. 4 and Mr. K. Patnaik, learned Counsel appearing for the State. 6. The admitted case of the parties is that the land belonged to the religious institution mentioned above and the estate vested on 18-3-1974 in the State. When the petitioner claims possession as on the date of vesting as a tenant on the basis of the sale deed from the permanent lease-holder Krushna Chandra Patra, opp. party No. 4, puts forth a rival claim on the basis of the permanent lease deed of the year 1942. Section 8 (1) of the O. E. A. Act contemplates that a tenant in possession of any holding shall be deemed to be a tenant of the State Government after the vesting. Section 8-A of the Act contemplates filing of claim application by the ex-intermediary u/s 6 or Section 7 of the Act or a person claiming right u/s 8 (3) of the Act, but it does not contemplate filing of any application by a tenant claiming right u/s 8(1). Law is well-settled that Section 8 (1) does not contemplate of any determination of rights by the authorities under the Act in respect of rival claims claiming tenancy right, though on the administrative side, the appropriate authority may try to find out the person from whom rent is to be accepted. Such administrative decision, however, does not affect the right of the real tenant who can establish his right in a Civil Court. Such administrative decision, however, does not affect the right of the real tenant who can establish his right in a Civil Court. Since, the matter seems to be pending before the Consolidation authorities and such a question relates to questions of right, title and interest in land, the Consolidation authorities would be competent to decide such a question during the consolidation operation. The petitioner has not mentioned anything about the stage of the consolidation operation except the order dated 28-11-1980 of the Assistant Consolidation Officer in his favour. Opp. party No. 4 in his counter-affidavit has indicated that the consolidation proceeding is still pending after remand by the revisional authority in a revision case at the instance of the present petitioner. This averment has not been challenged by the petitioner though he has filed a rejoinder to the counter affidavit. Since the matter is pending before the Consolidation authorities and none of the said authorities are before this Court, we are not inclined to quash the order dated 9-2-1987 of the Additional Tahasildar, Kendrapara, but we feel it appropriate to direct the petitioner to approach the consolidation authorities before whom the matter is pending and seek for appropriate relief. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. P.K. Misra, J. 7. I agree.