ORDER 6.11.2007 — Heard. The order, Annexure-5 passed by the Collector, Dhenkanal on 30.10.2000 in Grievance Cell is under challenge. That order reads as follows : “This is put up today. Both parties present. Heard them. It is contained by the petitioner that the disputed land in question has been settled in the Bebandobasti case No. 26/90 in the name of the petitioner and Patta has been issued in her favour by the Tahasildar. It is stated by that the O.P. is creating disturbance in her possession from the case land. O.P. is present and stated that he had got an area of 0.108 bearing plot No. 5618 under Khata No. 2600 of village Dhenkanal town through a gift deed No. 48/Dt.30/12/1965 and in peaceful. It is seen that the entire case land has been settled by the O.E.A. Collector in the Bebandobasti case No. 26/90 in favour of the petitioner and the Hal R.O.R. has been corrected in her favour. The O.P. has not taken any step till date to establish his title over the case land. The land in question was originally in intermediary status and Bebandobasti Khata has been prepared in favour of the petitioner by the settlement authority as suc¬cessor in interest and subsequently the said land is settled by the Tahasildar in the above Bebandobasti case in favour of the petitioner. So the gift deed produced by the O.P. confers no title over the case land. Hence, the O.P. is liable for eviction out of the case land. Direct the Tahasildar, Sadar to evict the O.P. from out of the case land and compliance reported. Send the extract of the order to Tahasildar to take follow up action as per my above order also ask the S.D.M. to take exigence of the matter under Section 136 of Cr.P.C.” On bare perusal of Section 136 Cr.P.C. it is needless to say that the aforesaid order is not covered by the provision under that provision of law and more so when no proceeding under Section 133 Cr.P.C. was at all initiated. It is expected from an officer like District Magistrate-cum-Collector to read/know the law before passing such an order (as quoted above). It is expected from an officer like District Magistrate-cum-Collector to read/know the law before passing such an order (as quoted above). Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the self-same dispute in relation to title and possession by each of the parties was before the Civil Judge (S.D.) Dhenkanal in Title Suit No. 96 of 2001 and after disposal of the First Appeal the dispute is pending in the High Court in Second Appeal. Regard being had to the aforesaid facts and submissions, since the dispute between the parties was in relation to claim of title and possession, the Collector, Dhenkanal had no jurisdiction to decide the case in the above quoted manner in the grievance cell and therefore that order is quashed. Be that as it may, both the parties shall abide by the decision taken in the Civil proceeding (Second Appeal). The O.J.C. is accordingly allowed. Petition allowed.