N. PRUSTY, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who claims to be the tenant under, opposite party No. 2, for quashing order dated 15. 1. 2005 and 4. 2. 2005 passed in O. L. R. Case No. 152 of 2005 and also order dated 9. 1. 2006 in the same proceeding. ( 2 ) THE learned Tahasildar, Balasore by his order dated 15. 1. 2005 in O. L. R. Case No. 152 of 2005 allowed the conversion of the Kisam of the disputed land from agricultural land to non-agricultural land (ghar bari) subject to payment of Rs. 31,537/- and by order dated 4. 2. 2005 directed correction of the R. O. R. and enhancement of the land revenue (Annexure-4 ). By order dated 9. 1. 2006 the review application filed by present writ petitioner against orders dated 15. 1. 2005 and 4. 2. 2005 in O. L. R. Case No. 152 of 2005 was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not taken any step to implead him a party in the course of disposal of the case and there is no clerical mistake or error in course of the proceeding. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that in case the above three orders are not set aside, the petitioner shall be highly prejudiced and suffer irreparable loss, since his application under Section 15 (1) (c) of the O. L. R. Act, i. e. , O. L. R. Case No. 7 of 2004 is pending before the concerned authority for declaration that he is a bhagtenant in respect of the schedule land and accordingly he is entitled to all reliefs claimed by him under the O. L. R. Act. ( 4 ) CONSIDERING the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the State, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage since the proceeding under Section 15 (1) (c) is a separate/independent proceeding and the same can be decided separately/independently on its own merit in accordance with law keeping in view the facts and circumstances relating to the claim of the petitioner as the bhag-tenants without being influenced by the order passed in O. L. R. Case No. 152 of 2005, since the petitioner was not a party to that proceeding and his claim in the present proceeding (O. L. R. Case No. 7 of 2004) is on the basis of the situation prevailed prior to orders dated 15. 1. 2005, 4. 2. 2005 and 9. 1. 2006 were passed. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, learned Revenue Officer-cum-Tahasildar, Balasore is directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner under Section 15 (1) (c) of the O. L. R. Act on its own merit and dispose of the same in accordance with law, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, relating to the claim of the petitioner as well as the evidence on record in this regard, without being influenced by the order dated 15. 1. 2005, 4. 2. 2005 and 9. 1. 2006 passed by him in O. L. R. Case No. 152 of 2005. ( 6 ) FURTHER it is made clear that in case any application is filed by the petitioner making an interim prayer, to protect his interest during the course of proceeding, the same shall also be considered and disposed of accordingly, on its own merit, in accordance with law as early as practicable. ( 7 ) WRIT petition is accordingly disposed. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, the Misc. Case also stands disposed of. .