JUDGMENT : Sanju Panda, J. - The Petitioner in this Writ Petition challenges the Order Dated 30.1.2.1996 passed by the Additional Tahasildar, Cuttack in O.E.A. Case No. 55 of 1968-69 whereby the Additional Tahasildar has refused to accept the Petitioner as a tenant u/s 8(1) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The Petitioner got a lease from the then intermediary Bhagaban Das in the year 1944 in respect of the disputed land Ac.9.00 under. Mouza Bidyadharpur. The description of the land as revealed from the records is as under: Sabik Khata No. 1 Sabik Plot No. 34, Area-Ac. 9.00 Corresponding to Hal Khata No. 333 Hal Plot No. 92, Area - Ac.9.30 decimals Kisam Gramya Jungle The Petitioner claims that he got the lease by way of Hatapatta and the status of this land was Anabadi (Niji Chasa) as per the Record-of-Right of the year 1932. The disputed land vested in the State on 21.5.1960 and as per the provisions of the Act, the person in possession of any holding of the intermediary immediately before the vesting will be deemed to be a tenant under the State Government with the same right and title as he was enjoying before the date of vesting. In view of the said provision, the Petitioner claims that he is continuing as a tenant under the State. Since the ex-proprietor failed to submit the rent roll in the name of the Petitioner, no tenant's ledger was opened by the Tahasildar and no rent could be tendered by the Petitioner as the State Government did not accept the rent from him. Hence, for the first time after 8 years of vesting, in the year 1968, the Petitioner filed an application before the Tahasildar for fixation of rent and to recognize him as a tenant in respect of the disputed land which was registered as O.E.A. Case No. 55 of 1968-69. Similarly, in respect of another patch of land measuring an area of Ac.33.00 acquired by him, the Petitioner had filed O.E.A. CaseNo. 56 of 1968-69 for settlement of the said land with him as tenant and acceptance of rent from him by the State. Similarly, in respect of another patch of land measuring an area of Ac.33.00 acquired by him, the Petitioner had filed O.E.A. CaseNo. 56 of 1968-69 for settlement of the said land with him as tenant and acceptance of rent from him by the State. The Tahasildar, on these two applications, called for report from the Revenue Inspector and after going through all the reports submitted by the Revenue Inspector and Amin, accepted the Petitioner as a tenant u/s 8(1) of the Act in respect of the disputed land and the rent was fixed with effect from 1963-64. By Order Dated 1.10.1982, the Tahasildar referred the matter to the Additional Tahasildar for follow up action. Thereafter, the Member, Board of Revenue on receipt' of a report from the Collector, set aside the Order Dated 1.10.1982 passed by the Tahasildar, initiated a suo-motu revision in exercise of his power u/s 38(B) of the Act and by Order Dated 28.3.1984, reversed the order passed by the Tahasildar. Against the said order, the Petitioner filed O.J.C. Nos. 1047& 1048 of 1984 which were disposed of by this Court on 13.01.1989 and the matter was remanded to the Board of Revenue for fresh consideration as it had not given any reason for exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 38(B) of the Act. The Board of Revenue thereafter dropped the proceeding with an observation that the Tahasildar's administrative order did not warrant revision u/s 38(B) of the Act. After disposal of the revision by the Board of Revenue, the case was transferred to the Additional Tahasildar for necessary orders. The Additional Tahasildar after examining the materials on record and making appropriate enquiry came to hold in his Order Dated 11.08.1993 that the land in question was inalienable. He, therefore, declined to recognize the Petitioner as a tenant in respect of the land vide Order Dated 11.08.1993. The Additional Tahasildar after examining the materials on record and making appropriate enquiry came to hold in his Order Dated 11.08.1993 that the land in question was inalienable. He, therefore, declined to recognize the Petitioner as a tenant in respect of the land vide Order Dated 11.08.1993. The Petitioner challenged the said order before this Court in O.J.C. No. 8038 of 1996 and this Court vide Order Dated 19.9.1996 noticed the discrepancies in the Order Dated 01.10.1982 of the Tahasildar and the Order Dated 11.08.1993 of the Additional Tahasildar and made the following directions: ...To get rid of this anomalous position, we feel it appropriate at this stage without issuing notice to direct the Additional Tahasildar to reconsider the matter at his level with reference to his Order Dated 11.08.1993 and pass an order whether rent should be collected from the Petitioner recognizing him as a tenant as provided u/s 8(1) of the Act. 3. Thereafter, the Petitioner appeared before the Additional Tahasildar and the Additional Tahasildar dismissed the claim of the Petitioner on 30.12.1996 holding that the disputed land is a Gramya Jungle (Village Forest) in the R.O.R. of 1974 and hence it cannot be settled in favour of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the Petitioner has field the present Writ Petition. 4. It is stated by the Petitioner that the disputed land was settled as Bahali Estate in the year 1932 in favour of the ex-proprietor Bhagaban Das and he inducted the Petitioner as raiyat in the year 1944 by issuing a Hatapatta. From the year 1944, the Petitioner is in possession of the land in question. Hence, after the vesting, he is entitled to be recognized by the State as a tenant and rent should be accepted from him and the Additional Tahasildar, however, without considering the aforesaid fact, rejected the claims of the Petitioner arbitrarily and illegally. Hence, the said order is liable to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court by exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The State Government has filed its counter traversing the claim of the Petitioner and supporting the impugned order. 6. Hence, the said order is liable to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court by exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The State Government has filed its counter traversing the claim of the Petitioner and supporting the impugned order. 6. From the above disputed position, this Court has to determine whether the authority who has passed the impugned order has committed any illegality or impropriety in deciding a question without giving an opportunity of hearing to the party affected by the order, or whether the proceeding adopted for dealing with the dispute is opposed to the principles of natural justice. 7. As per provision of the Act, on the vesting of an estate, the ex-proprietor whose estate has vested, has to submit rent rolls of tenants holding land in his estate on the date of vesting of the estate clearly giving therein the names of the tenant and the rent payable by such tenant. The Petitioner's claim is that he was a tenant under Bhagaban Das, the ex- intermediary and he was in possession of the land at the time of the vesting. The records reveal that in the oid Khewat, the name of Bhagaban Das appeared as one of the coshare intermediaries of second part Khewat No. 1/1 of Mouza Bidyadharpur in the district of Cuttack. His name was inserted in the Khewat pursuant to the Order Dated 27.7.1932 (Annexure-7) u/s 130 of the Orissa Tenancy Act. Said Bhagaban Das never came forward to exercise his right as an intermediary nor did any of his heirs claim the said rights. Said Bhagaban Das also did not file any rent roll pursuant to the vesting notification dated 21.5.1960 nor did he come forward to claim any compensation on account of vesting of the estate. The Petitioner has not been able to prove the fact that the said intermediary Bhagaban Das inducted the Petitioner as a tenant in the year 1944 and accepted rent from him by adducing any convincing evidence. The Addl. Tahasildar has rightly held that the identity of Bhagaban Das could not be determined from the available records. The records reveal that originally there were four sets of co-share intermediaries with different shares as recorded in the Khewat. They were: 1. N. Bharati - 6 annas share 2. S.N. Singh - 4 annas 6 pahis 3. The Addl. Tahasildar has rightly held that the identity of Bhagaban Das could not be determined from the available records. The records reveal that originally there were four sets of co-share intermediaries with different shares as recorded in the Khewat. They were: 1. N. Bharati - 6 annas share 2. S.N. Singh - 4 annas 6 pahis 3. Durga Prasad Bhagat - 3 annas 3 pahis 4. Bhagaban Das - 2 annas 3 pahis share Only N. Bharati filed rent roll wherefrom it was found that Bhagaban Das had mortgaged his share to Durga Prasad Bhagat. Presumably, Durga Prasad Bhagat fore-closed the mortgage and took possession of the mortgaged share himself. After vesting, it was Durga Prasad Bhagat along with other co-sharers who received the compensation in Compensation Case No. 2 of 1963. Except a photo copy of the rent roll purported to have been signed by Bhagaban Das, the Petitioner did not produce any further material or convincing evidence to show that Bhagaban Das received any compensation for vesting of the estate and field any rent roll for the disputed land showing the names of the tenants under him nor did he file anything in support of his claim immediately after investing. The Petitioner filed a copy of rent roil on 16.7.1968 without any original documents wherein only his family members had been shown as tenants and the Petitioner's claim in respect of Ac.33.00 out of Ac.55.00 land in plot No. 39 has been rejected earlier in O.E.A. Case No. 56 of 1968-69. The present dispute is in respect of Ac.9.00 of land from plot No. 34 and the rent roll produced by the Petitioner was only a copy and its authencity is doubtful as the same had not been proved. 8. The Additional Tahasildar vide his Order Dated 30.12.1996 rightly recorded the following findings: 1. The documents (copies) produced were also filed earlier and no new material was produced. 2. From the documents available the identity of Bhagaban Das the so-called intermediary who is said to have granted the leases could not be determined. (Obviously the State raised dispute with regard to the identity of Bhagaban Das - State's counter in this case) 3. At the time of the alleged lease the land in question was covered by natural forest growth and could not have been subjected to cultivation. 4. (Obviously the State raised dispute with regard to the identity of Bhagaban Das - State's counter in this case) 3. At the time of the alleged lease the land in question was covered by natural forest growth and could not have been subjected to cultivation. 4. Even accepting the receipts granted by Bhagaban Das those may be for collection of forest produce and could not be for cultivation. 5. There is absence of relationship of tenant and landlord between the Petitioner and the intermediary. 6. The land is still recorded as Gramya Jungle over grown with natural forest and is not capable of cultivation. 9. The Petitioner also before this Court has not produced any further material to convince that he has a tenancy right over the disputed land at the time of vesting. He has raised his claim eight years after the vesting and the so called Bhagaban Das did not come forward claiming compensation for his land vested by filing a compensation case. The Amin report and the R.I. reports are not admissible in respect of proof of possession conclusively and the reports submitted by the Amin and the Revenue Inspector filed on the same date, create a doubt regarding genuineness thereof and the Additional Tahasildar has made an effective enquiry before passing the final order and such a jurisdiction was exercised by him u/s 22 of the Orissa General Clauses Act, 1937. As per the direction passed by this Court in O.J.C. No. 8038 of 1996, after giving opportunity to the Petitioner to prove his claim, the Additional Tahasildar has passed his impugned order. The Petitioner has not been able to prove his claim. Hence, we are of the view that the Tahasildar has rightly recorded the above findings. 10. The law is well settled that when there is an error in exercise of jurisdiction or when an inferior Court or tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it, this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution will quash the said order. But where there may be conceivably two opinions, it can hardly be said to be an error and not every error can be corrected by a superior Court in exercise of its statutory powers as a Court of appeal or revision. 11. But where there may be conceivably two opinions, it can hardly be said to be an error and not every error can be corrected by a superior Court in exercise of its statutory powers as a Court of appeal or revision. 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, since we do not find any irregularity or illegality committed by the Tahasildar, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. I.M. Quddusi, J. 13. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed