JUDGMENT : R.K. Patra, J. - This is an application to review order dated 17-2-1998 passed by this Court in O.J. C. No. 13221 of 1997. 2. The aforesaid case (O.J.C. No. 13221 of 1997) was filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 21-7-1997 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubapeswar in Revision Case No. 3 of 1981 cancelling the lease granted to Bairagi Charan Raj - opposite party No. 3, in exercise of powers conferred u/s 7A(3) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962. The present applicant was the writ Petitioner and claimed to be the transferee of the disputed land from the original lessee Bairagi Charan Raj. This Court after hearing by the impugned, order dated 17-2-1998 dismissed the writ petition. 3. Two grounds were urged in support of the application for review: (i) the disputed land having been settled with the original lessee Bairagi Charan Raj on lease principles, the same is not available to he cancelled in exercise of powers conferred by Section 7A(3) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for short, the O.G.L.S. Act ) and (ii) the Additional District Magistrate cancelled the lease holding that the original lessee's annual income was more than Rs. 3600/- and thus he had profitable means of livelihood but this was not the disqualification herein the lease was granted. According to the learned Counsel the annual income of Rs. 3500/- was inserted to Section 2(b) of the O.G.L.S. Act by way of amendment by Orissa Act 2 of 1990. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate has produced before us the original lease record in which the disputed land was settled by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in favor of Bairagi Charan Raj. From the records, we find that the lessee made an application for grant of lease in the prescribed Form, No. I as provided in the O.G.L.S. Act. That clearly indicates that the applicant applied for settlement of land under the aforesaid Act and the Tahsildar on consideration of the same, settled it by order dated 7-1-1980 in favor of the lessee by stating as follows: The lands shown below are therefore settled in favor of Sri Bairagi Charan Raj, S/O. Lokanath Raj of village Bilasuni as per the sketch map attached with occupancy right. The aforesaid clearly indicates that the lease was settled in favor of the lessee in exercise of the powers conferred by the O.G.L.S. Act and the same having been cancelled in exercise of the powers conferred under the provisions of the very Act, we do not find any merit on the first point. 5. Regarding the second point, it may be noted that this Court addressed itself on it and observed as follows: The criteria profitable income has been introduced in 1990 to the tune of Rs. 3500/-. An argument is advanced that this concept of Rs. 3500/- was not available at the relevant and material point of time of granting lease. There was no land of Bairagi Charan Raj and he had no income at the particular point of time when the lease was executed. We do not appreciate this argument inasmuch as Shri Bairagi Charan Raj was never an agriculturist but a Government employee. If during the tenor of his employment for certain period payment of salary was kept in abeyance, it does not mean that during that period he had no profitable sources of income and that he was an agriculturist... 6. It is true that the prescription of income of Rs. 3500/- came to be inserted by Orissa Act 2 of 1990 to Section 2(b) and at the time when the lease was granted the provision was as follows: (b-l) 'landless agricultural laborer' means a person who has no profitable means of livelihood other than agriculture and who owns no land excluding his homestead; 7. The aforesaid pre-amended provision shows that the applicant must be a landless agricultural laborer who has no profitable means of livelihood other than agriculture. Admittedly the lessee was a Government employee and was drawing a salary of Rs. 400/- per month at the relevant time. That means he cannot be said to be a person with " no profitable means of livelihood". Thus, under the pre-amended provision the lessee was not entitled to be settled with any Government land. 8. For the aforesaid Reasons, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. There is thus no merit in this review application which is accordingly dismissed. Ch. P. K. Misra J. I agree. Application dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed