JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanty, J. - The Petitioners challenge the order of the Commissioner of Consolidation, Orissa, Bhubaneswar rejecting their Revision application. 2. The undisputed factual position is that sabik plot No. 1415 corresponding to L.R. plot No. 869 with. an area of A. 0.02 decs. and sabik plot No. 1416 corresponding to L.R. plot No. 870 with an area of A. 0.13 decs. belong to opp. parties 5 to 7 Sabik plot No. 1417 corresponding to L.R. plot No. 871 with an area of A.0.17 decs. belonging to the Petitioners and all these plots are adjacent. Opp. parties 5 to 7 filed objection during the Consolidation operation to the effect that their area has become less and reduced, inter alia on the ground that they have got delivery of possession of the disputed property in khata No. 120, plot No. 1415 area A.O.H decs. from western side out of.A. 0.02 decs. and khata No. 111, plot No. 1416 with an area Ac. 0.04 decs. from the western side out of A. 0.13 decs. by a decree of delivery of possession in respect of Ac. 0.051/2 decs. from their own two plots. 3. The present opp. parties 5, 6 and 7 had filed a suit, O.S. No. 87/16 of 1964-63-I in the court of the Munsif, Bhubaneswar for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of A. 0.081/2decs. of land appertaining to plot No. 1415. and plot No. 1416 which were acquired by the opp. parties from one Lokanath Misra, Bhaskar Misra and one Bhagaban Satpathy under permanent lease deed, who while levelling plot No. 1416 for construction of a house, the Petitioners encroached upon the suit land for which the opp. parties measured the area through an Amin. The present Petitioners, the Defendants in the suit filed their written statement contending inter alia that the suit land appertaining to plot No. 1417 and not to plot Nos. 1415 and 1416 which admittedly belongs to them. Six survey knowing Commissioners were deputed to measure and demarcate the suit land at different points of time and five of the reports were rejected by Civil Court whereas the last Commissioner found that the dimension of the encroached area works out about A. 0.21/2 dec. 1415 and 1416 which admittedly belongs to them. Six survey knowing Commissioners were deputed to measure and demarcate the suit land at different points of time and five of the reports were rejected by Civil Court whereas the last Commissioner found that the dimension of the encroached area works out about A. 0.21/2 dec. Ultimately the matter came to this Court in a Civil Revision which was disposed of with the direction that the report of the 9th Commissioner was to be kept on record and either he or in his absence another Civil Court Commissioner was to be deputed to submit the enlarged map of the area showing therein the entire boundary indicating as to why the total encroachment works out to Ac. 0.0.51/2 decs.. The suit having been dismissed, an appeal, T.A. No. 13/14 of 1972/73 was filed in the court of Additional District Judge, Bhubaneswar which was allowed and the judgment and decree of the Munsif was set aside. Second Appeal No. 308 of 1974 was filed by the Petitioners against the judgment passed in the Title Appeal which was dismissed. Execution Case No. 5 of 1978 was filed by the present opp. parties who were the Plaintiffs and accordingly writ of delivery of possession was issued and possession was delivered after demarcating the land by a Civil Court Commissioner. However, a petition under Order 21, Rule 100, CPC was filed by the mother guardian of the present Petitioners which was rejected. Misc. Appeal No. 12 of 1982 was preferred in the court of Sub-Judge, Bhubaneswar which was also dismissed as against which Misc. Appeal No. 89 of 1981 was filed in this Court which was also dismissed as not maintainable. 4. The opp. party No. 1 had come up earlier in O.J.C. No. 2363 of 1983 and this Court by order dated 20-4-1990 quashed the order of the Commissioner and directed that Case No. 1019 of 1981 be re-heard by the Commissioner after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and re-dispose of thereafter in accordance with law. The present writ application is against the order of the Commissioner after remand. The present writ application is against the order of the Commissioner after remand. The learned Commissioner, as it appears from the impugned order having found that the Deputy Director, Consolidation had compared the map of 1927 settlement, the not final map and the current Consolidation map and having come to the conclusion that the sabik plot No. 1417 though had an area of A. 0.17 decs. as per the record actually out of an area of Ac. 11.360 decs. as per the sabik map and came to the conclusion that the error in the actual area and the recorded area crept in during the previous settlement and concluded that the Respondent cannot claim title and possession on the basis of wrong entry committed by the settlement authorities. The Commissioner has observed that to make good the error the Deputy Director having allowed the appeal by correcting plot No. 871 of the Respondents with that of Plaintiffs' plot Nos. 869 and 870. no illegality has been committed. 5. The learned Commissioner as it appears proceeded on the footing that in Second Appeal No. 308 of 1974 between the parties, this Court decreed in favour of the opp. parties 5 to 7 and the learned Deputy Director has based his order on consideration of the judgment and, therefore, the Revision is without any merit. 6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. In the aforesaid factual back-drop, the point for consideration is as to whether the objectors'- opp. parties 5 to 7 had got delivery of possession of an area of Ac. 0.051 decs. in addition to the land claimed by them or is in addition to the entire land covered under the plot. A perusal of the judgment in Second Appeal No. 308 of 1974 indicates that this Court found that the Defendants therein, the present Petitioners were found to have encroached upon the Plaintiffs' plot Nos. 1415 and 1416 to the extent of Ac. 0.051/2 decs. as shown by the Commissioners. It is not the case of the opp. parties that the total area of the plots of which they are the land owners, has been reduced, but that A. 0.051/2 decs. which they have got through court delivery has not been added to the aforesaid plots. 0.051/2 decs. as shown by the Commissioners. It is not the case of the opp. parties that the total area of the plots of which they are the land owners, has been reduced, but that A. 0.051/2 decs. which they have got through court delivery has not been added to the aforesaid plots. On a close scrutiny of the contention of the learned Counsel for the parties and the pleadings would disclose that in the Second Appeal this Court directed that the area comprising of plot Nos. 1415 and 1416 is less by Ac. 0.051/2 decs. having been encroached by the Defendants (petitioners) and the delivery of possession was directed. Admittedly opp. parties 5 to 7 have got delivery of possession through court of Ac.0.051/2 decs. In any event it is not the case of the opp. parties that they are entitled to possess more than the area covered by plot Nos. 1415 and 1416 corresponding, to L.R. plot No. 869 with an area of Ac. 0.02 decs.and plot No. 870 with an area of Ac. 0.12 decs.. It is also not disputed that L.R. plot No. 871 corresponding to sabik plot No. 1417 with an area of Ac. 0.17 decs. belongs to the Petitioners and all the plots are adjacent. A perusal of the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer in case No. 2182(308) of 1979 u/s 9(3) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act indicates that on 3-7-1980 a field enquiry was conducted wherein Udayanath Behera was found to be in possession of 30 links in both sides out of plot No. 870 in excess and, therefore, the actual position of plot No. 870 was demarcated and peg marked and the parties were directed to remain in possession accordingly. If the parties are in actual physical possession of their respective parcels of land with the correct extent of area, there can not be any dispute inasmuch as Ac. 0.051/2 decs. which opp. parties 5 to 7 claimed to be in possession is not in excess and the extent of the land covered under sabik plot No. 1415 and plot No. 1416 corresponding to L.R. plot No. 870 in all nor the Petitioners are entitled to possess more than A. 0.17 decs. claimed and recorded in sabik plot No. 1417 corresponding to L R. plot No. 871. 7. claimed and recorded in sabik plot No. 1417 corresponding to L R. plot No. 871. 7. In that view of the matter, the orders passed by the learned Deputy Director in Consolidation Appeal and the order of the learned Commissioner passed in Consolidation Revision cannot be sustained in law and accordingly we quash the impugned orders in Annexures-2 and 4 and confirm the order of the Consolidation Officer passed in Objection Case No. 2182 (308)/79 in Annexure-L The writ petition is aIIowed. P.C. Naik, J. 8. I agree. Writ petition allowed. Final Result : Allowed