JUDGMENT : D.M. Patnaik, J. - The Petitioner assail the revision] order dated l1-10-1996 of the Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation. Sambalpur allowing the revision of the opposite party. thereby confirming the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer. Manapada in Objection Case No. 7815/678 of 1990. 2. Petitioners' case is, the disputed land measuring Ac.0.42 decimals under Land Register.Ptot No. 804, holding No. 707 corresponding to Major Settlement Plot No. 540 and that of the Haaud Settlement Plot No. 435 measuring Ac.O.l5 decimals and H.S. Plot No. 436 measuring Ac.0.60 decimals under Khata No. 124 belonged to the original record holder Akula Bhoi. This land. during current Consolidation operation, was recorded in the name of. Brusava Sahu. fathe of the Petitioners. Objection No. 6070/1559 of 1984 u/s 9(3) of the Consolidation Act was filed by husband of opposite party Golabati. with in. a c1aim that the land was purchased by one Laxman Sahoo. father of Hrushikesh Sahoo and title latter sold the land by registered sale deed dated. 26-9-1975. to, Golabati. This objection case was dropped on 8-10-1984 boy OId; of the Asst. Consolidation Officer, Manapada on ground that the present Petitioner gave out that the Ceiling proceeding under the provisions of the O.L.R. Act was pending in which the disputed land termed pait of the subject-matter of the said Ceiling proceeding. 3. Subsequently, Objection Case No. 7815/678 of 1990 under which the present writ petition arises was registered u/s 15(1) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 at the instance of the husband of opposite party Golabati. After registering this case the matter was taken up on 2-8-1990 and on subsequent dates and thereafter ultimately by order dated 6.5-91 the Asst. Consolidation Officer, Manapada allowed the objection of Golabati and by the order he directed for recording the land in the name of Golabati. Aggrieved by this order, the present Petitioners filed Consolidation Appeal before the Deputy Director, Consolidation of Holdings. Sambalpur. who b order dated 28-7-1992 passed in Consolidation Appeal Case No. 2/92 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Asst. Consolidation Officer. The opposite parties moved before the Joint Commissioner in the Revision Petition which has been' allowed for which the present Petitioners is before this writ court seeking relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Consolidation Officer. The opposite parties moved before the Joint Commissioner in the Revision Petition which has been' allowed for which the present Petitioners is before this writ court seeking relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Miss Dipali Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the Petitioners took this Court to the impugned orders of the Asst. Consolidation Officer as well as that of the Joint Commissioner. Consolidation and submitted that this land was purchased by Brusava Sahoo, father of the Petitioners from the original recorded holder Akula Bhol and subsequently it was mutated in his name and thereafter recorded in the settlement records in the Record of-Rights published on 23-6-1970 and since the date of purchase they have been paying rent in respect of the land. According to Miss Mohapatra the title and possession being adequately proved by documentary evidence', the Commissioner committed gross illegality/irregularity in directing recording of the land in the name of the opposite parties. Mr. D. Rajan, learned Counsel for opposite party, on the other hand, strenously urged that the revisional order being backed by proper reasoning with regard to absence of title of the Petitioner and being free from any infirmity, this Court should be slow to interfere with the revisional order. The respective contentions need examination. 5. It is well settled law that in any writ jurisdiction this Court is not supposed to go into the disputed facts alleged and denied. The corner-stone of Miss Mohapatra's argument is that the Deputy Director rightly set aside the order of the Asst. Consolidation Officer on the ground that the Asst. Consolidation Office had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition for objection by the opposite parties after publication u/s 13(1) and secondly, by passing the impugned order in absence of the Petitioner since they were not given any opportunity to produce their relevant document to prove their case and further Deputy Director rightly doubted the genuineness of the signature of Lingaraj Pradhan, husband of opposite party. We are not inclined to accept this argument. Because the Petitioner in fact had filed an Objection u/s 9(3) of the Consolidation Act when opposite party Hrusikesh the vendor of Golabati was present. We are not inclined to accept this argument. Because the Petitioner in fact had filed an Objection u/s 9(3) of the Consolidation Act when opposite party Hrusikesh the vendor of Golabati was present. That apart, they had opportunity to contest the case before the Deputy Director and also before the revisional authority and not only that they were given ample opportunity even to prove their case before this Court. Therefore, question of being prejudiced for their non-appearance at one stage of the entire proceeding cannot be accepted. Therefore we may examine the merit of the contention of Miss Mohapatra. 6. From the various annexures and pleadings of the parties the following facts are established. The Hamid Settlement Plot Nos. 435 and 436 measured Ac. 0.15 decimals and Ac. 0.60 decimals respectively totalling Ac. 0.75 decimals. Admittedly, Brusava Sahoo, father of the Petitioner purchased Ac. 0.07 decimals of land from plot No. 435 and Ac. 0.35 decimals of land from Plot No. 436 totalling Ac. 0.42 decimals of land by registered sale-deeds. Laxman Sahoo father of Hrusikesh Sahoo, a co-sharer of Brusava Sahoo purchased rest part of these two plots respectively,measuring Ac. 0.08 decimals and Ac. 0.35 decimals totalling Ac. 0.43 decimals. Hrushikesh, son of Laxman Sahoo sold the land to Golabati through registered sale-deed dated 26-3-1975. It is also established from the impugned revisional order that Budhu Sahu and Panchanan Sahu both jointly sold the land by registered sale-deed dated 0-2-76 to Ramachandra Choudhury and by another sale-deed dated 12-4-1976 to Manda Satyanarayan. From Annexures 5 and 6 two sale-deeds dated 4-5-91 it is apparent that Panchanan had sold Ac. 0.11 decimals of land to Sidheswar Bhoi and Ac. 0.10 decimals of land to one Bhubaneswar Padhim totalling Ac. 0.21 decimals. From this fact, it is crystal clear that both the Petitioners Budhu Sahoo and Panchanan Sahoo have jointly sold Ac. 0.42 decimals of land to Ramachanctra Choudhury and Manda Satyanarayan as already mentioned above and thus have no subsisting' title. It IS seen from the impugned orders that the same have been recorded in the name of the Petitioners during the current consolidation operation. Thus it seems that no more land still remained With the Petitioner as owners since they have already transferred the entire Ac. 0.42 decimals of land by way of four sale-deeds; two jointly and other two lndividually. 7. Thus it seems that no more land still remained With the Petitioner as owners since they have already transferred the entire Ac. 0.42 decimals of land by way of four sale-deeds; two jointly and other two lndividually. 7. Even then we grnted time to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners to produce the material to show their title to the land which she failed to produce. Secondly, the learned Commissioner has rightly stated that the Petitioners failed to prove as to how they have title to the land in dispute. Thirdly, the order of the Asst. Consolidation Officer dated 6-5-91 (Annexure-2) clearly indicates that before him the Petitioners admitted that they have been "perhaps" recorded by mistake in respect of the disputed land. Thus, we have no hesitation to accept this Adwaita Ch. Choudhury v. Smt. Toophani Choudhury part as correct since it is well established that the Petitioners have no more saleable interest in- the land in question. Therefore" we do not find' any merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Susanta Chatterji, A.C.J. 8. agree. 9. Writ petition dismissed Final Result : Dismissed