JUDGMENT B.P. DAS, J. — The petitioner-Shyam Sundar Sahoo having died during pendency of the writ petition is now represented by his legal heirs, petitioner Nos.1/a to 1/h. However, for the purpose of convenience, I shall refer him as petitioner in the course of this judgment. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.12.1990 passed by the Commissioner of Land Records and Settle¬ment, Orissa, under Section 32 of the Orissa Survey and Settle¬ment Act, 1958 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) in R.P. No.421 of 1990, vide Annexure-4 in which the order dated 14.8.1990 passed by the Settlement Officer, Cuttack, in Suo Motu Appeal Case No.49 of 1990, vide Annexure-2, was set aside and the suit property was directed to be recorded in favour of Corn Processing & Co., O.P. No.2 herein. 3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that not in final Hal plot Nos.580 Ac.0.715, 578 Ac.0.515, 566 Ac.0.530, 579 Ac.0.488, 565 Ac.0.045, 564 Ac.0.118 under Khata 256 Cuttack Town, corresponding to 1930 C.S. Plot No.3156 Ac.2.505 stood recorded in Sabik Khata No.65 in Mouza Madhupatna, Unit No.32, Cuttack Town, in favour of Banchhanidhi Sahoo, son of Baidhar Sahoo, Batakrushna Sahoo and Hadibandhu Sahoo, sons of Madhu Sahoo, under Nij Dakhal status in Part 2 Khewat No.12. The petitioner-Shyam Sundar Sahoo, i.e., the common ancestor of substituted petitioner Nos.1/a to 1/h, along with pro forma O.P. Nos.4 to 7 are the lineal descendants of Batakrushna, the Sabik recorded co-sharer. To supplement, the petitioner has furnished the following genealogy : Madhu Sahoo In an alleged Registered Partition Deed No.2401 dated 12.4.1957/24.3.1957 executed between Batakrushna and Banchha¬nidhi, an area of Ac.1.252.5 Kadis was allotted to each branch. Out of the share of Banchhanidhi, an area of Ac.0.030 was ac¬quired by the State Govt. and the remaining Ac.1.222.5 Kadis was sold by Banchhanidhi under R.S.D. No.2641 dated 19.4.1965/16.4.1965 to O.P. No.2-Corn Processing Co., which was claimed to have been converted into Jwalla Roller Flour Mills & Pvt. Ltd., O.P. No.3. In 1966 petitioner’s father-Batakrushna also sold a portion of his share to one Utkal Equipments and Chemicals but possession was not delivered to the said transfer¬ee-Utkal Equipments and Chemicals as the sale deed had not been acted upon. During the settlement operations, the suit lands were recorded in two Khatas. In 1966 petitioner’s father-Batakrushna also sold a portion of his share to one Utkal Equipments and Chemicals but possession was not delivered to the said transfer¬ee-Utkal Equipments and Chemicals as the sale deed had not been acted upon. During the settlement operations, the suit lands were recorded in two Khatas. Hal plot Nos.580 and 578 with a total area of Ac.1.230 were recorded in Hal Khata No.256 in favour of Banchhanidhi and Batakrushna with note of forcible possession in favour of Utkal Equipments and Chemicals represented by Hrusikesh Panda, son of Sadananda Panda. Further Hal plot No.566, 579, 565 and 564 with a total area of Ac.1.181 was recorded in Hal Khata No.160 in favour of Corn Processing Co. represented by Jwalla Prasad Sikaria, O.P. No.2. A Suo Motu Appeal bearing No.49 of 1990 was filed by the State before the Settlement Officer, Cut¬tack, impleading the writ petitioner and his four brothers as opposite parties where the present Q.P. No.2-Corn Processing Co. appeared and was heard. The Settlement Officer by order dated 14.8.1990, Annexure-2, directed to combine Hal Khata No.160 consisting of plot Nos.566, 579,565 and 564 with Hal Khata No.256 consisting of Hal plot Nos.578 and 580 and to record all the suit plots in favour of the writ petitioner and his four brothers on the ground that all those plots were possessed by them in one compound and that in R.S.D. dated 19.4.1965 sale was incomplete due to non-delivery of possession. Against the aforesaid order dated 14.8.1990 passed by the Settlement Officer, Cuttack, in Suo Motu Appeal Case No.49/1990, O.P. No.2-Corn Processing Co. filed R.P. Case No.421/1990 before the Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Orissa under Section 32 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (shortly called ‘OSS Act’) impleading peti¬tioner Shyam Sundar Sahoo and his four brothers as opposite par¬ties with a prayer to record the land of Ac.1.222.5 Kadis pur¬chased under R.S.D. dated 19.4.1965 in their favour. The Commis¬sioner by the impugned order dated 15.12.1990 (Annexure-4) al¬lowed the prayer of O.P. No.2 Corn Processing Co. and set aside the appellate order passed by the Settlement Officer under Annex¬ure-2 on the ground that the sale by Banchhanidhi in favour of O.P. No.2 was valid in view of Registered Partition Deed dated 12.4.1957/24.3.1957 and that voidability of the registered sale deed was not within the competence of the Settlement Court to decide. Hence this writ petition. and set aside the appellate order passed by the Settlement Officer under Annex¬ure-2 on the ground that the sale by Banchhanidhi in favour of O.P. No.2 was valid in view of Registered Partition Deed dated 12.4.1957/24.3.1957 and that voidability of the registered sale deed was not within the competence of the Settlement Court to decide. Hence this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Registered Partition Deed dated 12.4.1957 had not been given effect to or acted upon and there was unity of title and posses¬sion between the two branches. The concept of re-union after partition is permissible under the law. The sale deed dated 19.4.1965 executed by Banchhanidhi in favour of Corn Processing Co. was a nominal one, which had never been acted upon and there was no delivery of possession and the property remained in possession of the family members of the petitioner all through. In the initial records of settlement, there was forcible note of possession in favour of Batakrushna Sahoo, the common ancestor of the petitioner. In Suo Motu Appeal Case No.49/1990, the Settle¬ment Officer came to a categorical finding that no documentary material had been pressed into service to establish conversion/merger of Corn Processing Co. into Jwala Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. R.P. Case No.421/1990 was filed by Corn Process¬ing & Co. @ Jwala Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. represented through its Managing Director Kashi Prasad Sikaria is miscon¬ceived inasmuch as a partnership firm and a private limited company are two separate legal entities and cannot be clubbed together as a single legal entity. In Vesting Case No.4127/1963-64 filed under Sections 6, 7 and 8(3) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 vide Annexure-1, the suit C.S. plot No.3156 measuring an area of Ac.2.505 has been assessed to rent in favour of Banchhanidhi, Batakrushna and one Bhima, son of Hadibandhu, by the order dated 3.8.1964 passed by the O.E.A. Collector. Such settlement by the O.E.A. Collector lends corroboration to the case of the petitioner that the partition deed dated 12.4.1957 had not been acted upon. 5. O.P. Nos.2 and 3, i.e., Corn Processing Co. Such settlement by the O.E.A. Collector lends corroboration to the case of the petitioner that the partition deed dated 12.4.1957 had not been acted upon. 5. O.P. Nos.2 and 3, i.e., Corn Processing Co. and Jwala Roller Flour Mills, have jointly filed a counter affidavit plead¬ing therein that the genealogy submitted by the petitioner is not correct to the extent that Hadibandhu, the second son of Madhu, had one adopted son, namely, Bhima, who died issueless; that after the death of Bhima, the suit joint family property was partitioned by metes and bound by Registered Partition Deed dated 12.4.1957 where both the parties were allotted an area of Ac.1.222.5 Kadis each; out of the share of Banchhanidhi an area of Ac.0.030 was acquired by Govt. in land acquisition proceedings and that the compensation for acquisition of such land was re¬ceived by Banchhanidhi. The rest area of Ac.1.222.5 Kadis re¬mained under the peaceful possession of Banchhanidhi, who was paying rent and after transfer, O.Ps.2 and 3 are paying rent for the said land. It has been further pleaded that at no point of time the compound wall was constructed by Batakrushna, the father of the petitioner, and that he was never in possession of the area Ac.1.222.5 Kadis transferred by R.S.D. dated 19.4.1965 in favour of O.P.2, which was a registered partnership firm and was in physical possession of the land purchased by it by construct¬ing a boundary wall and by paying rent to the Govt. O.Ps. 2 and 3 are one and the same, which can be evident from the memorandum and articles of association (Annexure-D) and the certificate of incorporation thereof; that T.S. No.7/1964 filed by Batakrushna, the father of the petitioner, against Banchhanidhi and Corn Processing O.P. No.2, with a prayer for restraining Banchhanidhi from transferring or alienating any portion of the suit schedule B land, which was obtained by virtue of the partition in the year 1957. The said suit filed for a right of way was dismissed for default by order dated 14.12.1966 (Annexure-E/1) and no step was taken for restoration of the said suit or any appeal was filed against the said order. The father of the petitioner had sold substantial portion of the property obtained through allotment in the partition of 1957 for an area of Ac.0.170 to one Utkal Equip¬ments and Chemicals Ltd. under R.S.D. No.2479 dated 17.4.1967. The father of the petitioner had sold substantial portion of the property obtained through allotment in the partition of 1957 for an area of Ac.0.170 to one Utkal Equip¬ments and Chemicals Ltd. under R.S.D. No.2479 dated 17.4.1967. Utkal Equipments and Chemicals Ltd., which was all along in possession, mortgaged the said land to Orissa State Financial Corporation, which took over it for failure to re-pay the loan. O.P. No.2 filed T.S. No.268/1967 against Utkal Equipments and Chemicals, its Managing Director and against O.S.F.C. in the Court of the Addl. 2nd Munsif, Cuttack, praying for issue of manda¬tory injunction directing the defendant to remove any construc¬tion in case the same had been made over the disputed land. The suit was decreed ex parte against which O.S.F.C. filed T.A. No.20/1976/27/1977 in the Court of the Addl.Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, who confirmed the order of the learned Munsif on manda¬tory injunction. It was further pleaded that the recitals of the sale deed dated 17.4.1967 executed by Batakrushna vide Annexure-F is an admission by the petitioner that the sale was by virtue of the allotment through partition of the year 1957 and as such it cannot be said that the partition was never acted upon. No suit for cancellation of the partition deed of 1957 or subsequent sale deeds had ever been filed in any civil Court for establishment of any subsisting title by the petitioner. Enquiry by the Amin was unilateral and without knowledge of the present opposite parties. The Amin report is vexatious, sham and a fraudulent document, which was prepared without participation of the opposite parties. The suo motu appeal filed under Section 22 (2) (b) of the O.S.S. Act is ex facie illegal and had not been passed in accordance with law as initiation of the said proceeding is against the mandate of law. The Settlement Officer having no jurisdiction whatsoever assumed the power of the civil Court and declared the sale deed dated 19.4.1965 void, which has been rightly set aside by the learned Commissioner in R.P. Case No.421/1990 filed under Section 32 of the O.S.S. Act. The order dated 1.6.1968 passed in the proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. being Criminal Misc. Case No.247/1965 (Annexure-K) filed against pro forma O.P. No.4 is a clear proof of possession of O.P. No.2 over the suit land, where the partition deed and the transfer have been taken cogni¬zance of. 6. The order dated 1.6.1968 passed in the proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. being Criminal Misc. Case No.247/1965 (Annexure-K) filed against pro forma O.P. No.4 is a clear proof of possession of O.P. No.2 over the suit land, where the partition deed and the transfer have been taken cogni¬zance of. 6. From the above pleadings, the issues to be decided are whether the transfer made by Banchhanidhi under R.S.D. dated 19.4.1965 pursuant to the partition effected by Regd. Partition Deed dated 12.4.1957 is valid and whether the impugned revisional order passed by the Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement in R.P. No.421 of 1990, Annexure-4, is liable to be set aside. 7. Admittedly the suit lands corresponding to 1930 C.S. plot No.3156 were the Nij Dakhal lands of the petitioner’s ances¬tor, which were recorded in Part II Khewat No.12. Pursuant to the coming into force of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951, the ex intermediary interest vested to the State which was assessed to rent in Vesting Case No.4127/1963-64 under Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the OEA Act in favour of Banchhanidhi, Batakrushna and one Bhima, the son of Hadibandhu. Perusal of the Registered Partition Deed dated 12.4.1957 reveals that out of C.S. Plot No.3156 Ac.2.505, Banchhanidhi and Batakrushna were allotted Ac.1.252.5 Kadis each. Banchhanidhi transferred Ac.1.222.5 Kadis to O.P. No.2-Corn Processing Co. under R.S.D. dated 19.4.1965. In the counter affidavit filed by the contesting opposite parties, i.e., O.P. Nos.2 and 3, it has been stated that after the death of Bhima, the entire property recorded in C.S. plot No.3156 was equally partitioned between Banchhanidhi and Batakrushna as per the Registered Partition Deed dated 12.4.1957 whereafter Banchha¬nidhi transferred Ac.1.222.5 Kadis in favour of O.P. No.2-Corn Processing Co.. The order in vesting case No.4127/1963-64 (Annex¬ure-L) in which C.S. plot No.3156 has been settled in favour of Banchhanidhi, Batakrushna and Bhima reveals that till disposal of Vesting case No.4127/1963-64 Bhima was alive. Therefore, the assertion of the opposite parties that the suit C.S. plot No.3156 was partitioned in 1957 between Batakrushna and Banchhanidhi, after the death of Bhima, is not sustainable. Further, with the coming into force of the O.E.A. Act in 1951, the suit lands in C.S. plot No.3156, which were the ex intermediary lands, vested to the State and thus became the Govt. lands and as such the same were not partiable in 1957. Further, with the coming into force of the O.E.A. Act in 1951, the suit lands in C.S. plot No.3156, which were the ex intermediary lands, vested to the State and thus became the Govt. lands and as such the same were not partiable in 1957. Once the assumption of entitlement through purchase basing on the void partition deed of 1957 goes, the title of the contesting opposite parties would be valid to the extent of the share of Banchhanidhi as per the order passed the Vesting Case No.4127/1963-64. The flow of title pursuant to the transfer made in 1965 is again subject to satisfaction of the conditions enshrined in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. The plethora of judgments cited and the transfers made by either party are also subject to the fulfilment of the condi¬tions laid down in Section 54 of the T.P. Act. The settled posi¬tion of law is that settlement record neither creates nor extin¬guishes title and that settlement R.O.R. hints at presumption of possession only. This being the position of law under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act under which the impugned revisional order under Section 32, vide Annexure-4, and the appellate order under Section 22, vide Annexure-2, have been passed, the entire exercise is limited to find out the possessor of the lands after verification of title obtained through documentary evi¬dence. The appellate Court has held that the petitioner and his brothers are in possession of the suit lands by raising one compound wall coupled with the final R.O.R. Khata No. 550 finally published under Section 12 of the O.S.S. Act in October, 2000, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-G, and this goes on to prove the assertion of the petitioner relating to possession. 8. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the Registered Partition Deed dated 12.4.1957 is void ab initio and that the title of the contesting opposite parties pursuant to the purchase made vide R.S.D. dated 19.4.1965 is subject to fulfilment of the conditions laid down in Section 54 of the T.P. Act, which can be thrashed out in proper Court of law. 9. The submission of O.P. Nos.2 and 3 relating to merger of O.P. No.2-company under the company law does not appear to be convincing. 10. 9. The submission of O.P. Nos.2 and 3 relating to merger of O.P. No.2-company under the company law does not appear to be convincing. 10. In the result, the order passed by the Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Orissa, in R.P. No.421 of 1990, under Annexure-4, is quashed. The writ petition is allowed ac¬cordingly but without any order as to cost. Petition allowed.