JUDGMENT : Pradipta Ray, J. - In this writ application the Petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated May 31, 1989 passed by the Consolidation Commissioner in Consolidation Revision No. 694 of 1987 u/s 37(1) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Consolidation Act). 2. Petitioner' case, inter alia, is; The disputed plots of land originally belonged to exintermediary Sevendrapada Bandopadhyay. In the record of rights of 1928 the disputed plots were recorded in the name of the said intermediary having intermediary interest and one Artabandhu Dutra was recorded as Sthitiban Dhulibhag tenant under the said intermediary. Artabandhu Dutta defaulted in payment of kind rent and the said intermediary filed Rent Suit No. 1246 of 1929-30. The said rent suit was decreed in favour of the intermediarylandlord. The said decree was executed in Execution case No. 851 of 1932-33 against the recorded tenant and the intermediary got delivery of possession of the disputed land through court on December 13, 1935. The tenancy of Artabandhu came to an end with the decree passed against him in the rent suit. After obtaining delivery of possession from the tenant the said intermediary inducted Jagannath Panda, the father of the Petitioner as a tenant of the disputed land in 1936. The said intermediary collected Sanja rent from Jagannath Panda till 1945. By a registered deed of sale dated December 26. 1945 the said intermediary transferred his intermediary interest in the land to one Ram Chandra Panda. In the deed of sale it was specifically mentioned that Jagannath Panda was a bhag tenant under the 1 said vendor. On February 1. 1954 the said Ram Chandra Panda gifted the disputed land to Govinda jew Thakur. Jagannath Panda, the father of the Petitioners continued as to tenant in possession of the disputed land under Ram Chandra Panda and thereafter under Govinda Jew Thakur till the date of vesting under the Orissa Estate Abolition Act (in short 0. E.A. Act'). Under the provisions of the O.E.A. Act the intermediary interest of the landlord vested in the State and Jagannath, the bhag tenant in possession on the date of vesting because a non occupancy raiyat under the State. E.A. Act'). Under the provisions of the O.E.A. Act the intermediary interest of the landlord vested in the State and Jagannath, the bhag tenant in possession on the date of vesting because a non occupancy raiyat under the State. As Jagannath continued as a non-occupancy tenant under the State for more than 12 years, in the record of rights of 1977 his name was recorded as Sthitiban tenant of the disputed land. In 1973 Jagannath filed an application u/s 4(2) of the Orissa Land Reforms' Act being O.L.R. Case No. 2073 of 1973 for declaring him as a raiyat under the State Government. The Revenue Officer in fact initiated the case on June 22, 1974 and directed issue of notice to the Petitioner and the opp. party,fixing July 30. 1974 as the date for production of documents in support of the respective claiMs. On June 5, 1975 the Revenue Officer recorded an order that the Petitioner Jagannath was dead. In spite of recording the death of Jagannath, the Petitioner in the O.L. R. case, the Revenue Officer proceeded with the O.L.R. case and directed the Revenue Supervisor to give a report. In the report of the Revenue Supervisor it was mentioned that Artabandhu Dutta was actually in cultivating possession of the disputed land. As no one on behalf of the deceased-petitioner was present the Revenue Officer on August 2, 1975 dismissed the petition u/s 4(2) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (in short 0. L.R. Act') on the basis of the Revenue Supervisor's report. On August 5, 1975 Lingaraj Panda, present Petitioner No. 1, one of the sons of Jagannath Panda filed an application stating that on the date fixed for production of documents he could not appear and as such the case should be reheard after giving him an opportunity to produce the documents in support of the case of Jagannath. Upon such application the Revenue Officer reheard the case and ultimately is held Jagannath to be a bhag tenant under the ex-intermediary on the eve of vesting and declared him to be a tenant under the Government after the diet of vesting under the O.E. A. Act. Against the said order an appeal being O.L. R. Appeal No. 42 of 1976 was filed by Artabandhu Dutta. Against the said order an appeal being O.L. R. Appeal No. 42 of 1976 was filed by Artabandhu Dutta. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal holding, inter alia, that re-hearing of the case by the Revenue Officer did not cause any prejudice to the Appellant inasmuch as both the parties were given due opportunity to place their respective cases and that absence of formal order for substitution was just an irregularity. The heirs of Artabandhu Dutta (present opp. parties No. 2 to 7) filed O.L. R. revision under the provisions of the O.L. R. Act before the revisional authority. By judgment and order dated April 16, 1987 the Addl. District Magistrate (Land Reforms) Puri as the revisional authority allowed the revision on the technical ground that the revenue officer did not pass any order substituting Lingaraj in place of Jagannath and in the final order the revenue officer declared the Petitioner as the raiyat. The revisional authority took the view that by the final order the Revenue Officer declared Jagannath Panda, a dead person as a tenant and accordingly the said order was without jurisdiction and void. Consolidation operation under the provisions the Consolidation Act commenced in the area where the disputed lands were recorded in the name of Jagannath, heirs of Artabandhu raised a dispute which was registered as Dispute Case No. 3 of 1980 of the Asst. Consolidation Officer, Bira Ramchandrapur, P.S. Satyabadi. By order dated April 16, 1980 the Asst. Consolidation Officer decided the dispute case in favour of the Petitioners. After about 7 years, the heirs of Artabandhu filed a revision u/s 37(1) of the Consolidation Act challenging the order passed, by the Asst.. Consolidation Officer. By judgment and order dated May 31. 1989 the Commissioner of Consolidation allowed the revision recording that the O.L. R. revision court has held that the ex-intermediary not having been in possession of the suit land the question of inducting the late father of Petitioners did not arise". The Consolidation Commissioner ordered to record the land in favour of the present opp. parties 2 to 7. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Commissioner of Consolidation, the Petitioners, who are the heirs of Jagannath Panda, have filed this writ petition. 3. In support of the writ application Mr. The Consolidation Commissioner ordered to record the land in favour of the present opp. parties 2 to 7. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Commissioner of Consolidation, the Petitioners, who are the heirs of Jagannath Panda, have filed this writ petition. 3. In support of the writ application Mr. P. N Mohapatra learned Advocate has submitted that the Consolidation Commissioner should not have exercised his suo motu powers u/s 37(1) of the Consolidation Act at the instance of opp. parties 2 to 7 seven years after the order passed by the Asst. Consolidation Officer. According to Mr. Mohapatra, the power u/s 37(1) of the Consolidation Act is to be exercised within a reasonable period of time and after recording reasons for invoking such power. He has further~ submitted that if the suo motu jurisdiction u/s 37(1) of the Consolidation Act is mechanically exercised at the instance of private parties who have not preferred any appeal or even any revision u/s 36 of. the Consolidation Act, the other provisions of the Act will be rendered nugatory. It has been further urged that the Consolidation Commissioner completely misread and misappropriated the order passed in the O.L. R. proceeding by the Revenue Officer. 4. Mr. Pal, appearing for opp, parties 2 to 7 has submitted that the Petitioners not having challenged the revisional order passed under the O.L. R. Act, they are bound by the said revisional order ana the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to go beyond the order passed by the revisional authority under O.L. R. Act. Mr. Pal has further supported the order of the revisional authority under the O.L. R. Act on the ground that the order passed by the Revenue Officer in the O.L.R. case was passed in favour of a dead person and was rightly, set aside as a void order. In support of his submission Mr. Pal has referred to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Harekrushna Samal and Others Vs. Kashi Mallik and Others, . 5. The rev is ion a I authority under the O.L.R. Act passed the following order in O.L.R. Revision Nos. 3 and 4 of 1980: In the last paragraph he mentioned that the Petitioner Sri Panda was a bhag tenant and he declared the Petitioner to be raiyat. Kashi Mallik and Others, . 5. The rev is ion a I authority under the O.L.R. Act passed the following order in O.L.R. Revision Nos. 3 and 4 of 1980: In the last paragraph he mentioned that the Petitioner Sri Panda was a bhag tenant and he declared the Petitioner to be raiyat. Thus the court has declared Jagannath Panda a dead person as a tenant and went on conducting the case filed by the dead person without proper substitution order. "The entire case is vitiated due to defect in procedure and any order passed by the court. Subsequent to 2-8-75 is without jurisdiction. The proper course for the present opp. party would have been to file an appeal before the S.D.O. rather than filing a review petition on 5-8-75. Therefore, I allow both the revisions and set aside the order dated 9-1-76 and 12-2-76 in O.L.R. Case No. 2073/73. The land belonged to the ex-intermediary and it has been vested with Government. The ex-intermediary was not evidently in possession. Therefore, the Tahasildar, Puri should take action under the provisions of O.E.A. Act with regard to the land. It is made clear, this order does not bar the opp. party to file a regular case under the provisions of O.L.R. Act before the Revenue Officer if he has any such case because as I feel he has not been properly advised in prosecuting his case. 6. It appears from the said order that the revisional authority set aside the original order of the Revenue Officer on the technical ground as mentioned therein and did not record any finding in favour of the opp. parties 2 to 7. The revisional authority did not even consider the cases of the present Petitioners and opp. parties 2 to 7 on merit. The effect of the said order of the Revisional Authority was only to erase the orders passed by the Revenue Officer and the Appellate Authority in favour of the writ Petitioners. Thus there is no order or determination under the O.L. R. Act upholding the rights of either of the contending parties. In absence of any final determination by any authority under the O.L.R. Act the decision in Harekrushna Samal's case is not applicable to the present case. 7. Thus there is no order or determination under the O.L. R. Act upholding the rights of either of the contending parties. In absence of any final determination by any authority under the O.L.R. Act the decision in Harekrushna Samal's case is not applicable to the present case. 7. The order passed by the Revisional Authority under the O.L. R. Act contains various errors, but as the said order has not been challenged in this writ petition, it is not open to us to consider the correctness there of. 8. It is dear from the impugned order passed by the Consolidation Commissioner that he completely misconstrued the order passed by the Reversional order under the O.L. R. Act. It was nobody's case, that the intermediary was in physical possession of the disputed land on the date of vesting. The dispute to be determined was who was the tenant under the intermediary on the eve of date of vesting under the O.E. A. Act. The Consolidation Commissioner failed to appreciate the scope of the dispute before him and completely misdirected himself in proceeding on the view as if the decision in the O.L.R. proceeding was on favour of the opp. parties 2 to 7. The intermediary interest no doubt vested in the State. When the Consolidation Commissioner accepted that the intermediary was not in possession of the disputed land, as a logical consequence he also accepted that some body else was in possession of the disputed land on the date of vesting. In view of the case presented before him, it was his duty to determine and find out whether Jagannath the predecessor in interest of the present Petitioner, or Artabandhu, the predecessor in interest of opp. parties 2 to 7 was in tenant of the disputed land under the ex-intermediary and being the tenant in possession of the land under the intermediary became a direct tenant under the State upon vesting of the,intermediary interest under the provisions of the O.E. A. Act. 9. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the Consolidation Commissioner and direct him to re-hear the revision case afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the present Petitioners and the opp. parties 2 to 7 and keeping in mind the observations made in this judgment. 9. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the Consolidation Commissioner and direct him to re-hear the revision case afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the present Petitioners and the opp. parties 2 to 7 and keeping in mind the observations made in this judgment. The Commissioner will re-hear and dispose of the revision case within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. The representative of the present Petitioners and the representative of opp. parties 2 to 7 will appear before the Consolidation Commissioner on March 28, 2000 to obtain directions regarding re-hearing of the revision. 10. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. L. Mohapatra, J. 11. I agree. Writ petition allowed. Final Result : Allowed