JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - This writ application is directed against the decisions rendered by the Consolidation authorities. 2. There is no dispute that Antaryami Mohapatra and Chintamoni Mohapatra were the landlords and Sadhu Choudhury was the Sikim tenant under them. Hini Choudhury, present opposite party No.4, is the daughter of Sadhu Choudhury. The present petitioner claims that by virtue of the sale deed dated 29.6.1942, Sadhu Choudhury sold his right in favour of the present petitioner and one Sridhar Choudhury and delivered possession and the present petitioner and Sridhar Choudhury continued as tenants. It is further claimed that in a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, relating to a part of the disputed land, compensation was paid to Chintamoni Mohapatra as the landlord and Sridhar and . the petitioner representing the tenancy interest. The present petitioner claims that after the death of Sridhar without any heir, the present petitioner is in possession of the entire disputed land. The petitioner further claims that taking advantage of his absence, the land was recorded in the name of Chintamoni Mohapatra and Antaryami Mohapatra as landlords and Sadhu Choudhury as Sikim raiyat in the record-of-rights of the year 1983. 3. During the consolidation proceeding land was recorded in the names of Antaryami Mohapatra and others as landlords and Hini (present opposite party No.4) as Sikim raiyat. The present petitioner filed Objection stating that his name should be recorded as Sikim tenant instead of opposite party No.4. Such petition having been rejected by the Consolidation Officer whose order has been confirmed in appeal and revision, the present writ application has been filed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised several contentions in support of his claim that the right of the petitioner as Sikim tenant should have been recoginsed. He has further submitted that subsequently, the petitioner has purchased the property from Antaryami Mohapatra and as such, the right of Sikim tenant has merged with that of the landlord. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has supported the reasoning by the forums below. 5. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on going through the orders passed by the Courts below, I think the writ application is to be disposed of on the sole question relating to jurisdiction of the Consolidation authorities. The main dispute appears to be one relating to identity of the tenants. 5. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on going through the orders passed by the Courts below, I think the writ application is to be disposed of on the sole question relating to jurisdiction of the Consolidation authorities. The main dispute appears to be one relating to identity of the tenants. The present petitioner claims that he and the co-purchaser, Sridhar Choudhury became Sikim tenants under the previous landlords by virtue of sale deed dated 29.6.1942. On the other hand, the present opposite party No. 4 contends that she continued as a tenant after the death of Sadhu and no such sale deed was executed by Sadhu in favour of the present petitioner and his co-purchaser. Since there is dispute relating to identity of tenants, the matter has to be decided u/s 16 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. Section 51 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act reads as follows:- "51. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, but subject to the provisions contained in Clause (3) of Section 4 and Sub Section (1) of Section 7 - (1) all questions relating to right title, interest and liability in land lying in the consolidation area, except those coming within the jurisdiction of Revenue Courts or authorities under any local law for the time being in force, shall be decided under the provisions of this Act by the appropriate authority during the consolidation operation; and (2) no Civil Court shall entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an officer or authority empowered under this Act is competent to decide." A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, particularly, Section 51 (1) makes it clear that the matter which comes within the purviews of jurisdiction of a Revenue Court of authority under the Orissa Land Reforms Act is excluded from the jurisdiction of the consolidiction to decide authorities. Since the Consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to decide a question as to whether the present petitioner or the opposite party No. 4 was the Sikim tenant, such finding must be taken to be without jurisdiction. 6. It is stated by the counsels for the parties that in the year 1994, a proceeding under the Orissa Land Reforms Act had been initiated. 6. It is stated by the counsels for the parties that in the year 1994, a proceeding under the Orissa Land Reforms Act had been initiated. If such proceeding is pending, it should be decided in accordance with law on the basis of the evidence to be adduced, without being influenced by the fact that the name of opposite party No.4 has been recorded by the Consolidation authorities. On the other hand, if such proceeding has not been judicially determined, it would be open to either party to move the appropriate Revenue Officer to initiate a proceeding. In this context, it is made clear that the Revenue Officer has got suo motu jurisdiction to start such a proceeding to determine about the identity or tenants. 7. Subject to the aforesaid observation, the writ application is disposed of.