ORDER W. P. (C) No. 5584 of 2003 And W. P. (C) No. 405 of 2005 12.1.05 — W. P. (C) No. 5584 of 2003 has been filed against the order dated 9.1.2002 passed by the Commissioner, Land Reforms and Settlement, Orissa, Cuttack, in R.P. No. 9043 of 2001 directing the Settlement Officer to treat the revision petition filed under Section 32 of the Act as an appeal under Section 22 and decide the case on merit after notice to the parties. 2. This Court in the above case by order dated 6.6.2003 directed stay of further proceedings in Appeal Case No. 257 of 2002 pending before the Settlement Officer, Puri. The said interim order was extended again on 28.7.2003. However, when the matter was taken up on the next date i.e. 27.10.2003 no order was passed by this Court extending the interim order. In view of the above, the Settlement Officer proceeded with hearing of the appeal and disposed of the same by order dated 29.8.2003. The said order passed by the Settlement Officer in Appeal Case No. 257 of 2002 has now been challenged in W. P. (C) No. 405 of 2004. 3. From the record of W. P. (C) No. 5584 of 2003 it appears that even though no specific order was passed by this Court extending the interim order dated 6.6.2003, the opposite party No. 3 pursued her application for vacating the interim order even after 27.10.2004. Apart from the above, the Settlement Officer was aware of the pendency of W. P. (C) No. 5584 of 2003 and was also aware of the interim order passed by this Court on 6.6.2003. Even though the interim order was not extended by any specific order, since the Settlement Officer was aware that the order of remand passed by the revisional authority was under challenge in this Court and the same was subjudice, he would have waited for disposal of the writ application instead of disposing of the same taking advantage of the fact that the interim order had not been extended. I am, therefore, of the view that the order passed by the Settlement Officer in Appeal Case No. 257 of 2002 which is the subject matter of Annexure-1 in W.P.(C) No. 405 of 2004 is liable to be set aside. 4. I am, therefore, of the view that the order passed by the Settlement Officer in Appeal Case No. 257 of 2002 which is the subject matter of Annexure-1 in W.P.(C) No. 405 of 2004 is liable to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the parties have placed their respective cases in details but I have not dealt with on merits as the matter is being sent back to the appellate authority for reconsideration on merit. The appellate authority shall consider the remand order passed by the revisional authority as an open remand and all the parties to the proceeding shall be given full opportunity of producing their relevant documents, if any, as well as hearing so that the Settlement Officer can come to a just decision. 5. With the aforesaid direction and observation both the writ applications are disposed of. The parties are directed to appear before the Settlement Officer on 24th January 2005. On their appearance, the Settle¬ment Officer shall give them one month time to produce all the documents and proceed with the hearing of the appeal thereafter. Applications disposed of.