JUDGMENT I. MAHANTY, J. — The petitioner in this writ application seeks to challenge the order dated 14.9.1987 passed by the Addi¬tional District Magistrate, Sambalpur now District Jharsuguda. Pursuant to that order, OLR Case No.365 of 1976, which was dropped by the Revenue Officer by his order dated 30.4.1978. 2. The limited facts of the case are that a proceeding under the OLR Act was initiated against the petitioner as OLR Case No.365 of 1976 on account of the petitioner having failed to submit a return as required under Section 40(A) of the OLR Act. That proceeding culminated by the final order passed on 30.4.1978. 3. Mr. Udgata placed his reliance upon the findings given by the Revenue Officer-cum-Tahasildar, Jharsuguda in his order dated 30.4.1978. The most relevant portion of the said order is quoted below : “I have conducted local enquiry and visited the house of co-sharers. As per the partition effected during the year 1928, an area of Ac.118.36¼ of the lands falls to the share of the legal heirs of Late Dasarathi Patel.......” The said order indicates the genealogy of the family and thereafter, the Revenue Officer held that partition amongst the legal heirs was affected during the year 1943 by mutual family arrangement. He also further found that at the time of local enquiry the separate houses having separate kitchen, cow-sheds, thatching floors and the original family has emerged into a large society having their own economic interest. Based on the local enquiry and the aforesaid findings, he accepted the conten¬tion of the petitioners as regards division and sub-divisions of the land amongst the share holders and each co-petitioners. 4. Accordingly, the proceeding was concluded with the finding that none of the land owners is found to be a ceiling surplus land owner in that case and accordingly, the proceeding under Section 42 of the Act was dropped. 5. Mr Udgata submits that no logic is apparent in order dated 14.9.1987 and the same is without authority of law. The A.D.M., Sambalpur purportedly passed the order holding that there had been no consultation with local committee members and the field check regarding numbers of families and, therefore, direct¬ed reopening of the case and disposal in accordance with law. It appears that pursuant to that direction of the ADM, the subse¬quent orders have been passed by the Addl. The A.D.M., Sambalpur purportedly passed the order holding that there had been no consultation with local committee members and the field check regarding numbers of families and, therefore, direct¬ed reopening of the case and disposal in accordance with law. It appears that pursuant to that direction of the ADM, the subse¬quent orders have been passed by the Addl. Tahasildar for reopen¬ing the matter and issuing notice to the parties. Mr. Udgata submits that the impugned order, giving rise to the present condition of the proceeding, was passed without jurisdiction. He asserts that the order passed under Section 42 was an appealable order and in fact, no appeal had been filed against the order dated 30.4.1978 and further asserts that in the present case the only source of authority vested with the ADM is under Section 60 of the OLR Act. According to him, under Section 60(2) of the Act, within a period of two years from the date of finalization of a statement under Sub-section (3) of Section 44, the A.D.M. may modify the order passed by the Revenue Officer. 6. In the present case, Mr. Udgata submits that the ADM is not the appellate authority and there has not been any applica¬tion filed by the concerned party within a period of two years from the date of finalisation under Section 44(3) of the Act. To establish this contention, Mr. Udgata placed reliance on Rule 42 of the OLR (General) Rules, 1965. Under Sub-rule (1) thereto, the S.D.O. is the appellate authority for any appeal against the order passed by the Revenue Officer not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer and under Sub-rule (2), ADM of the District is the appellate authority when the order is passed by the Revenue Officer not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer. 7. In the present case, the original order sought to be reopened was passed by the Revenue Officer-cum-Tahasildar, Jhar¬suguda and in terms of Rule-42, appeal therefrom could only lie to the Sub-Collector and not to the ADM. Therefore, I am of the view that the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is well placed and the ADM did not possess necessary jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 14.9.1987. Therefore, I am of the view that the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is well placed and the ADM did not possess necessary jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 14.9.1987. Apart from this, it is further clear from the impugned order that the subsequent reopening of the proceeding and issue of notices have been effected on the basis of ADM’s order, which, has already been held hereinabove, to be without jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, order dated 14.9.1987 is quashed and it is declared that the subsequent reopening of the proceeding is without sanction of law. Petition allowed.