JUDGMENT R. K. DASH, J. — These two cases being inter-linked, were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgment. For better appreciation, we will refer to the averments made in OJC No. 8421 of 1999. 2. The petitioner is a retired employee of the office of the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Northern Division, Sambalpur (for short, ‘the Commissioner). He is a lessee in respect of Nazul plot No. 1614/51 situated in Sambalpur town. A road adjoin¬ing to the said plot appertains to Nazul plot No. 1614/53. Since the said road has been encroached upon by opposite parties 3 and 4 and others, he moved the Commissioner under Sec. 4(1) of the Orissa Revenue Divisional Commissioner Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by filing a petition seeking for issu¬ance of necessary direction for removal of encroachment. The aforesaid petition was registered as Misc. Case No. 3 of 1995 and by order dated 23.5.1997 at Annexure-4 the Commissioner disposed of the case by directing the Tahsildar to initiate encroachment cases against the encroachers. A further direction was also given that lease of Nazul Plot No. 1614/54 measuring Ac. 0.06 dec. in respect of one Prasanna Kumar Panda be cancelled since he has sold the same to opposite party No. 4 without prior permission from the competent authority. Again the petitioner moved the Commissioner by filing Misc. Case No. 6 of 1998 for taking expe¬ditious steps pursuant to the order passed in the earlier Misc. Case at Annexure-4. On the basis of certain reports furnished by the Tahsildar, direction was given to the Collector, Sambalpur, to take steps for cancellation of the sale deed of opposite party No. 4 by filing a suit in the Civil Court. Since no action was taken despite necessary direction by the Commissioner, the peti¬tioner has filed the present writ petition praying for issuance of a writ to evict opposite party No. 4 from that part of the road which he has encroached and to take legal steps to get the sale deed declared as illegal and void. 3. Prior to the filing of the aforesaid writ petition, opposite party No. 4 filed a writ petition in OJC No. 3296 of 1999 to quash the order of the Commissioner at Annexure-4 as well as the notice issued in Misc. Case No. 6 of 1998 pending before the Commissioner. 3. Prior to the filing of the aforesaid writ petition, opposite party No. 4 filed a writ petition in OJC No. 3296 of 1999 to quash the order of the Commissioner at Annexure-4 as well as the notice issued in Misc. Case No. 6 of 1998 pending before the Commissioner. The case of opposite party No. 4 is that his vendor Prasanna Kumar Panda was a lessee in respect of Nazul plot No. 1614/54. Right of a lessee in respect of Nazul plot being heritable and transferable, Shri Panda transferred his leasehold land to him by a registered sale deed in 1995. Prior to transfer he had constructed a house on the said land, but could not complete the construction because of non-availability of funds. After purchase, opposite party No. 4 completed construc¬tion of the half built house and has been residing thereon. Opposite party No. 4 has denied the petitioner’s assertion of having encroached upon Nazul plot No. 1614/53. As to the order of the Commissioner passed in Misc. Case No. 3 of 1995, he has alleged that neither notice was issued to the original lessee nor to him and behind their back the impugned order at Annexure-4 was passed. Besides, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction under the Act to initiate any case and to pass orders declaring a sale deed as illegal and invalid. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for parties at length and perused the necessary documents and orders available on record. It is borne out from the record produced before us that pursuant to the order of the Commissioner. Nazul Misc. Case No. 3 of 1997 under Rule 34 (e) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules was initiated by the Tahsildar, Sambalpur and final order was passed on 20.3.1998 for making necessary correction of the major settlement plots as well as the map which relate to the Nazul plots in question. So far as opposite party No. 4 is concerned, Resumption Case vide Misc. Case No. 3 of 1998 was registered and by order dated 11.1.1999 the Tahsildar disposed of the same with the observation that since the transfer of the leasehold land by Shri Panda was without permission of the Col¬lector, the latter is the competent authority to re-enter into the land and having observed thus, he submitted the case to the Collector for taking action in the matter. 5. 5. It was contended by the learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 4 that the Act does not envisage that the Commissioner has power to initiate any case and pass orders to initiate encroachment proceeding and to declare any deed as void. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner being illegal and without jurisdiction is non est in the eye of law. 6. Section 4 of the Act on the basis of which Misc. Case No. 3 of 1995 was registered speaks of the Commissioner’s administrative power/control, being the Chief Executive of the Division. It does not provide that he can pass any judicial order directing his subordinate authorities to initiate a proceeding under any statute and while doing so, he can declare the validity or otherwise of a document. In that view of the matter, his observation in the impugned order declaring the sale deed of opposite party No. 4 as illegal, is, in our considered opinion, without jurisdiction. The Collector, Sambalpur, to whom the matter has been referred to by the Tahsildar to initiate a resumption proceeding in respect of the land transferred in favour of opposite party No. 4 will pass appropriate orders in accordance with law uninfluenced by the aforesaid observation of the Commissioner. So also, if pursuant to the order of the Com¬missioner encroachment case has been instituted under the provi¬sions of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, the Tahsildar, Sambalpur, will pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, notwithstanding any observation made by the Commission¬er. 7. With the aforesaid observation both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. R. K. PATRA, J. I agree. Petition disposed of with direction.