ORDER 11.4.2005 — Heard Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Mr. Purohit, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.5 and learned Addl.Government Advocate appearing for opposite party Nos.1 to 4. 2. The judgment dated 19th December, 1986 passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation in Consolidation Revision Case No.1126 of 1986 in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 is assailed in this writ peti¬tion. 3. The disputed lands measuring an area of Ac.0.64 deci¬mals are situated in mouza Durgeswar, P.S. Gop in the district of Puri under Sabik Khata No.69 and comprises of different plots. There is no dispute at the Bar that the disputed lands were the subject matter of Execution case No.113 of 1944-45 in which a decree was passed in Rent Suit No.2021 of 1943-44 in the Court of Deputy Collector. In the said execution case the disputed lands were put to auction and one Dinabandhu being the highest bidder the lands were settled in his favour and writ of delivery of pos¬session was issued and the lands were physically handed over to Dinabandhu. After obtaining delivery of possession through Court, Dinabandhu became the absolute owner having valid right, title and interest over the lands. He possessed the same free from all encumbrances. The village in which the lands are situat¬ed came within the fold of Consolidation Operation. Thereafter the lands were recorded in the names of the petitioners who claim to be the legal heirs and successors of Dinabandhu, the auction purchaser in the execution case in the Land Register. 4. While matter stood thus, an objection case was filed by opposite party No.5, inter alia, taking a stand that he had pur¬chased the lands from Dinabandhu Mohanty, the recorded owner. The allegation that the petitioners were the legal heirs of Dinabannd¬hu Mohanty, who had purchased the lands in the execution case, was also stoutly denied by opposite party No.5. According to him, Dinabandhu Mohanty son of Netrananda Mohanty was the auction purchaser who had alienated the disputed property in his favour by a registered sale deed and by virtue of the said sale deed he had acquired right, title and interest over the lands and was in possession thereof and prayed to record the lands in his favour. According to him, Dinabandhu Mohanty son of Netrananda Mohanty was the auction purchaser who had alienated the disputed property in his favour by a registered sale deed and by virtue of the said sale deed he had acquired right, title and interest over the lands and was in possession thereof and prayed to record the lands in his favour. The plea of the opposite party No.5 was negatived by the Deputy Director. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Director, opposite party No.5 approached the Commissioner, Con¬solidation under Section 36 of the Act and the Commissioner allowed the revision and directed that the lands should be re¬corded in the name of opposite party No.5, Laximinarayan Patra, son of Gopinath Patra. The said order, as stated earlier, is assailed in this writ petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. I have also perused the materials available on record as well as the documents annexed to the writ petition and counter affidavit. The dispute in the present case is very limited. The only point which needs to be adjudicated is also who was the real auction purchaser of the lands in execution case No.113 of 1944-45. Ac¬cording to the petitioners, Dinabandhu son of Ghanashyam Mohanty of village Durgeswar was the auction purchaser to whom the exe¬cuting Court had delivered possession, vide Annexure-1. On the other hand, according to opposite party No.5, Dinabandhu, son of Netrananda was the real auction purchaser. While the petitioners submit that vendor of opposite party No.5 Dinabandhu was an imposter, Gopinath opposite party No.5 submitted that the peti¬tioners were not the legal heirs or successors of the real Dina¬bandhu the auction purchaser and taking advantage of the name of the auction purchaser they have put forth a false claim. 6. The dispute, with regard to identification of Dinaband¬hu in whose favour the lands were sold in the execution case is a pure question of fact which cannot be effectually adjudi¬cated under the Writ Jurisdiction. Though the Consolidation authorities are authorized to decide the disputes with regard to the status of a person, the same has to be ancillary or inciden¬tal to the main question. Though the Consolidation authorities are authorized to decide the disputes with regard to the status of a person, the same has to be ancillary or inciden¬tal to the main question. The dispute in the present case being who was the real auction purchaser i.e. whether Dinabandhu son of Ghanashyam or Dinabandhu son of Netrananda and as the same cannot be adjudicated under Writ Jurisdiction, this Court feels that it is a fit case where the parties should be directed to file a civil suit where the question with regard to identity of real Dinabandhu who had purchased the disputed property in Execution Case No.113 of 1944-45 can be determined. 7. In the aforesaid scenario the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to file a civil suit before the competent Court seeking declaration that they are the legal heirs and successors of Dinabandhu who was the auction purchaser in Execution case No.113 of 1944-45 of the Court of Sub-Collector, Puri. 8. The record of rights prepared by the Consolidation authorities no doubt will be subject to the decree that may be passed by the Civil Court. In other words if the decree is passed in favour of the petitioners, it would be open to them to get the records corrected by producing the said decree. The order passed by the Consolidation Commissioner shall not act as res judicata as the dispute with regard to the identity of the real auction purchaser Dinabandhu has not been effectually adjudicated nor any issue was framed to that extent. With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is dis¬posed of. Petition disposed of.