JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. : The petitioners have filed the above writ applications challenging the order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue in exercise of revisional power under Section 59(2) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960. The case of the petitioners is that they were cultivating the lands of ex-Sarbarkar who was holding the lands as Village Officer. The system of appointment of Village Officer was abolished on 1.4.1966 and the Bhogra lands continued to remain in possession of the Village Officer thereaf¬ter and the ex-Sarbarkar had inducted the petitioners as Bhag tenants under him. The petitioners claiming themselves to be the Bhag tenants filed different cases for declaration of the lands under their possession as non-resumable and fixation of equitable rent. The applications were rejected on the ground that the lands being Bhogra lands and having not been settled on Rayati basis with the ex-Sarbarkar, the applications under Section 36-A of the O.L.R. Act against the land owner are not permissible. Thereaf¬ter, the lands under the possession of the ex-Sarbarkar were settled under Rayati basis and ceiling proceeding was started against the ex-Sarbarkar under the said Act. After settlement of the lands with the ex-sarbarakar on Rayati basis, the petitioners again filed applications under Section 36-A of the Act to declare the lands under their occupation as non-resumble, before finalisa¬tion of the ceiling proceeding against the ex-Sarbarakar. The said applications were allowed and the lands were declared to be non-resumable and orders were passed for issuance of Rayati Patta in favour of the petitioners in respect of the land under their occupation as Bhag tenants. After long lapse of time, the Collec¬tor, Phulbani made a reference to the Member, Board of Revenue under Section 59(2) of the Act to set aside the orders passed by the Revenue Officer-cum-Tahsildar allowing the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 36-A of the Act on the ground that the orders were illegal and have reduced the extent of surplus land that could be found against the ex-Sarbarakar and the lands to that extent could not be vested in the State Govern¬ment. The said reference was accepted by the learned Member, Board of Revenue and the same having been allowed, these writ applications have been filed. 2. The said reference was accepted by the learned Member, Board of Revenue and the same having been allowed, these writ applications have been filed. 2. The learned counsel Shri Patnaik appearing on behalf of the petitioners in all the cases challenging the order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue submitted that the petitioners were inducted as tenants after 1.4.1966. Under Section 36-A of the Act, the land which has been leased out to a tenant after 1st of October, 1965, may make an application within two years from the date of commencement of the Orissa Land Reforms (Second Amend¬ment) Act, 1975 for being declared as a Rayat in respect of such land. The petitioners having filed the applications under Section 36-A of the Act for such declaration within the statutory period, the same were rightly allowed by the opposite party No.3. It was also contended that the lands in respect of which the applica¬tions under Section 36-A of the Act had been filed were settled on Rayati basis with the ex-Sarbarakar under Section 5(1) of the Orissa Merged Territories (Village Offices Abolition) Act, 1966 and the ex-Sarbarakar became a Rayat with effect from 1.4.1966. Initially when the applications were filed under Section 36-A of the Act, the Revenue Officer had rejected the same under a wrong notion that the lands had not been settled with the ex-Sarbarakar on Rayati basis and, therefore, he reopened the cases after an order of settlement was passed in favour of the ex-Sarbarakar and declared the lands under occupation of the petitioners as non-resumable. The land owner having admitted the tenancy, there was no option left for the Tahsildar-cum-Revenue Officer except allowing the applications of the petitioners filed under Section 36-A of the Act. Shri Patnaik also challenged the revisional order on the ground that since there was no dispute with regard to induction of the petitioners as Bhag tenants under the ex-Sarbarkar, non-compliance of Rule 27-B is not mandatory. In any event, if the revisional Court found any procedural defect, it could have remitted the matter back to the Revenue Officer for consideration instead of setting aside the order and disallowing the claim of the petitioners. 3. In any event, if the revisional Court found any procedural defect, it could have remitted the matter back to the Revenue Officer for consideration instead of setting aside the order and disallowing the claim of the petitioners. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties 1 to 3 wherein it is stated that originally the applica¬tions were filed under Section 36-A of the O.L.R. Act when the lands had not been settled with the ex-Sarbarakar and it contin¬ued to have the nature of Bhogra lands and as such could not have been settled. The Tahasildar-cum-Revenue Officer had rightly rejected the said applications on the above ground and the peti¬tioners did not prefer any appeal challenging the said order. Subsequently, the Tahsildar reopened the cases and allowed the same and, therefore, the procedure adopted by the Tahsildar is not legal. In view of such mistake on the part of the Tahsildar, the lands under occupation of the petitioners as Bhag tenants were excluded from the ceiling proceeding initiated against the ex-Sarbarakar and accordingly, lands to that extent could not be vested in the State Government. 4. Undisputedly, the petitioners had filed applications under Section 36-A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act in the year 1975 and by order dated 4.11.1975 the Tahsildar rejected the applications on the ground that the lands have been recorded as Bhogra land and accordingly, the same could not be settled under Section 36-A of the O.L.R. Act. After the aforesaid order, the proceeding was closed and no appeal was filed by the petitioners against the said order. After settlement of the lands under occupation of the petitioners with the ex-Sarbarakar, who induct¬ed them as Bhag tenants under him, the matter was brought to the notice of the Tahsildar again and on applications filed by the petitioners, all the cases were reopened. The order dated 25.1.1983 passed by the Tahsildar shows that on the basis of the applications filed by the petitioners the cases were reopened and on inquiry it was found that the petitioners were in possession of their respective lands as Bhag tenants under the ex-Sarbarakar who has also admitted induction of the petitioners as Bhag ten¬ants under him. On the above basis, the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 36-A of the Act were allowed. On the above basis, the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 36-A of the Act were allowed. It fur¬ther appears that a reference was made by the Collector, Phulbani to the Member, Board of Revenue under Section 59(2) of the O.L.R. Act in the year 1985 for declaring the order passed by the Tah¬sildar as illegal on the grounds stated in the counter affidavit. The revisional Court allowed the reference on the ground that the O.L.R. cases filed by the petitioners were rejected in the year 1975 and were again reopened in the year 1983 and, therefore, the Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to reopen the cases after dismissal of the same. 5. On perusal of the averments made in the writ applications, counter affidavit as well as impugned orders, the question that arises for consideration is as to whether the Tahsildar had any jurisdiction to reopen the O.L.R. cases filed by the petitioners after the same were dismissed on 4.11.1975. Admittedly under Section 36-A of the O.L.R. Act applications were filed by the petitioners to declare the lands under their occupa¬tion as non-resumable and also for fixation of fair rent when the ex-Sarbarakar was enjoying the lands as Bhogra lands. The Bhogra land was settled with the ex-Sarbarakar on Rayati basis under Section 5(1) of the O.M.T. Act. Even though the ex-Sarbarakar admitted induction of the petitioners as Bhag tenants under him, their applications filed under Section 36-A of the O.L.R. Act could not be allowed so long as the lands had not been settled on Rayati basis on the land owner. In view of the above reason, the Tahsildar had rightly rejected the applications filed by the petitioners on 4.11.1975. After 4.11.1975 the lands were settled on Rayati basis on the land owner and the petitioners filed applications in the same O.L.R. Cases for reopening the cases and the Tahsildar reopened the cases and allowed the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 36-A of the Act on the ground that the lands had already been settled on Rayati basis with the land owner and the land owner admitted the induction of the petitioners as Bhag tenants. The question that comes up for consideration is as to whether the Tahsildar had any jurisdiction to reopen the cases after the applications filed by the petition¬ers were rejected on 4.11.1975. The question that comes up for consideration is as to whether the Tahsildar had any jurisdiction to reopen the cases after the applications filed by the petition¬ers were rejected on 4.11.1975. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to a decision of this Court in the case of Jogendra Bag v. Tahsildar-cum-Revenue Officer, Dharamgarh and others reported in 75 (1993) C.L.T. 489. In the said decision this Court held that the person who passes an order or his suc¬cessor-in-office can review the order after noticing all persons interested on the ground of any clerical mistake or error in course of any proceeding under the Act. The expression “error in course of any proceeding” under the Act would obviously include within its sweep an apparent error on a misconstruction of the provisions of a statute committed by the very officer or his predecessor-in-interest. This decision has been rendered in relation to Section 60 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 which confers power of review. The learned counsel also relied upon a decision with regard to non-compliance of Rule 27-B of the Land Reforms Rules, 1965 and the said decision is the case of Kalicha¬ran Paikray and another v. Benga Bewa and others reported in AIR 1985 Orissa 58. The only decision relevant for the above purpose is the case of Jogendra Bag v. Tahsilar-cum-Revenue Officer, Dharamgarh and others (supra). This Court interpreting Section 60 of the O.L.R. Act which empowers the authority to review its own order has clearly laid down that the expression “error in course of any proceeding” under the Act would obviously include within its sweep an apparent error on a misconstruction of the provi¬sions of a statute committed by the officer who had passed the earlier order. In the present case the lands involved were Bhogra lands and the lands were in possession of the Village Officer. After coming into force of the Orissa Merged Territories (Village Offices Abolition), Act, 1966 though the land owner no more continued as the Village Officer, the lands continued to be Bhogra lands and the proceeding under Section 5(1) of the O.M.T. Act had been initiated for settlement of the lands in favour of the land owner on Rayati basis. After coming into force of the Orissa Merged Territories (Village Offices Abolition), Act, 1966 though the land owner no more continued as the Village Officer, the lands continued to be Bhogra lands and the proceeding under Section 5(1) of the O.M.T. Act had been initiated for settlement of the lands in favour of the land owner on Rayati basis. When such proceeding was pending for settlement of the lands in favour of the land owner on Rayati basis, the petitioners approached the Tahsilar under Section 36-A of the O.L.R. Act for declaration that the lands are non-resumable and also for fixation of fair rent. In view of the above, undis¬putedly when the applications were filed by the petitioners under Section 36-A of the Act in the year 1975, the nature of the land continued to be Bhogra land and had not been settled with the land owner on Rayati basis. The Tahasildar was, therefore, justi¬fied in rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners on the above ground in this order dated 4.11.1975. After settlement of the land in favour of the land owner on Rayati basis, the cases were reopened by the Tahsildar in the year 1983 on the basis of the applications filed by the petitioners claiming that the lands had already been settled with the land owner on Rayati basis and, therefore, their applications under Section 36-A of the O.L.R. Act could be considered. The said applications filed by the petitioners were entertained and allowed. There can not be any dispute that the order dated 4.11.1975 passed by the Tahsil¬dar rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 36-A of the O.L.R. Act were rightly rejected as the lands by that time had not been settled with the land owner on Rayati basis. Since there was no illegality in the order dated 4.11.1975, no review of the said order would be possible under Section 60 of the O.L.R. Act. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the finding of the Member, Board of Revenue that review of the order-dated 4.11.1975 was not permissible. Having confirmed the finding of the learned Member, Board of Revenue to the above extent, it is not necessary to discuss the other question raised relating to non-compliance of Rule 27-B of the Rules. 7. Having confirmed the finding of the learned Member, Board of Revenue to the above extent, it is not necessary to discuss the other question raised relating to non-compliance of Rule 27-B of the Rules. 7. The only other question raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that after abolition of the village office under the O.M.T. Act, the appointed date should be 1.4.1966 looses its relevancy in view of the finding arrived at by this Court in the earlier paragraphs. I therefore do not find any merit in all the writ applications and the same are dismissed. Applications dismissed.