ORDER 19.11.2003 — Heard. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging to the legality and propriety of the judgment delivered by the Commis¬sioner of Consolidation, Bhubaneswar on September 12, 1989 in Consolidation Revision No.1119 of 1987. 3. After hearing the parties at length and referring to the ratio in the cases of Nikunja Kishore Das and others v. Consolidation Officer and another,* 66 (1988) C.L.T. 182; and Kasinath Das and after his death, Basudev Das v. Commissioner of Consolidation, Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack and others, 72 (1991) C.L.T. 878, this Court finds that the jurisdiction vested in Section 37 (1) of the Consolidation Act, for the following reasons, has not been properly invoked and exercised by learned Commissioner of Consolidation and therefore, the matter must go on remand to him for appropriate adjudication. 4. In the above context, it may be noted that the dispute which presently subsists between the parties is, as to whether the writ petitioner Upendra Mohanty is the adopted son of late Basudev Mohanty. His status as the natural son of Netrananda Mohanty is not in dispute. Decision was arrived at by the learned Commissioner, Consolidation with reference to certain documents that petitioner is not the adopted son of late Basudev Mohanty. 5. Section 37 (1) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (in short ‘the Act’) reads as hereunder :- “37. Powers to call for records-(1) The Consolidation Com¬missioner may call for and examine the records of any case decid¬ed or proceedings taken up by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the pro¬ceedings or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by such authority in the case or proceedings and may, after allowing the parties concerned a reasonable opportuni¬ty of being heard make such order as he thinks fit. (2) The power under Sub-section (1) may be exercised by the Director of Consolidation in respect of authorities subordinate to him.” The above quoted provision clearly lays down the guideline for the revisional authority that it calls for the records of any case decided or proceeding taken up by any subordinate authority to examine regularity of the proceedings or as to the correct¬ness, legality or propriety of any order passed and to pass appropriate order as he thinks fit. 6. 6. Dispute between the parties is as to whether the Con¬solidation Officer was right in recording the name of the peti¬tioner in the Record of Rights describing him as the son of late Basudev Mohanty. Without discussing the manner in which the Consolidation Officer entered that name without finding whether the method adopted by the Consolidation Officer was proper or improper and without indicating lacuna, if any, in such order the Commissioner of Consolidation should not have exercised the jurisdiction to make the impugned correction. In that context he could not have assumed the jurisdiction of the original Court to himself to decide the dispute in the impugned manner. Therefore, as noted above, while setting aside the impugned judgment, the Commissioner of Consolidation, Orissa, Bhubaneswar is directed to afresh hear the parties and to dispose of the application under Section 37(1) of the Act strictly in accordance with law. If necessary, he may call for the relevant records prepared by the subordinate authorities. 7. Since the dispute is pending for over two deceased, as agreed by the parties, the case should be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the learned Commissioner, Consolidation. Peti¬tioner undertakes to produce a certified copy of this order before that Court on 11.12.2003. Therefore, this Court directs both the parties to appear in that Court on that date. Default in appearance by any of the parties be regarded as such and no fresh or further notice be issued. Learned Commissioner, Consolidation shall do well to hear and dispose of the Revision within a period of two months from that date. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Petition allowed.