JUDGMENT : M.M. Das, J. - The Petitioner in this writ application has called in question the order dated 06.06.2006 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Orissa, Balasore-opposite party No. 1 under Annexure-6. 2. Though the matter was listed for admission, but considering the limited nature of the grievance made, the same was heard on merit. 3. Facts reveal that the Petitioner claiming to be the recorded tenant over Hal Plot Nos. 1322, 1328, 1329, 1327 filed a revision petition before the opposite party No. 1 u/s 15(b) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for correction of the Hal Settlement Map in which a water channel has been shown over the plots of the Petitioner. 4. It appears that the said map after completion of the Hal Settlement was published in the year 1981 and the revision was filed in the year 2004 along with an application for condonation of delay. The learned Joint Commissioner by the impugned order under Annexure-6 refused to condone the delay and did not admit the revision being R.P. No. 31 of 2004. 5. Mr. A.R. Dash, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is the recorded tenant over the above properties under Hal Khata No. 938 corresponding the Sabik Plot Nos. 2406, 2404 and 2407 under Sabik Khana Nos. 600, 1011 and 723 respectively. In the Sabik Settlement Map, no water channel was shown as has been shown in the Hal Map. He further contends that, as a matter of fact, no water channel exists at the spot and in that view of the matter the published map is apparently erroneous. Mr. Dash, further submits that publishing a correct map under the Act is the statutory responsibility of the settlement authorities and the map if found to be incorrect on the face of it should not be allowed to be maintained as such, as the same would mislead the authorities in subsequent settlements. 6. Learned Counsel for the State, on the contrary, submits that the revisional authority has rightly rejected the application filed by the Petitioner on the ground of delay as there was inordinate delay in filing the petition and the explanation given in the application for condonation of delay was unsatisfactory. 7. Sections 15 and 16 of the Act, which are relevant in this case, are quoted hereunder: 15. 7. Sections 15 and 16 of the Act, which are relevant in this case, are quoted hereunder: 15. Revision by Board of RevenueThe Board of Revenue may in any case direct: (a) of its own motion the revision of any record-of-rights, or any portion of a record-of-rights, at any time after the date of final publication under (Section 12-B) but not so to affect any order passed by a Civil Court u/s (42); (b) on application made within one year from the date of final publication u/s 12-B the revision of record-of-rights or any portion thereof whether within the said period of one year or thereafter but not so as to affect any order passed by a Civil Court u/s 42: Provided that no such direction shall be made until reasonable opportunity has been given to the parties concerned to appear and be heard in the matter. 16. Maintenance of records - In order to keep the map and the record-of-rights up-to-date same shall be maintained in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed in that behalf. 8. A bare reading of the above Sections shows that u/s 15(a) of the Act, the Board of Revenue of its own motion can direct revision of any record-of-rights, or any portion of a record-of-rights, at any time after the date of final publication u/s 12-B, but not in contravention of any order passed by the Civil Court u/s 42 of the Act, whereas Section 15(b) deals with application to be made by the aggrieved party for revision of record-of-rights or any portion thereof and prescribes the limitation of one year from the date of final publication. Section 16 of the Act mandates that in order to keep the map and the record-of-rights up-to-date, it is to be maintained in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed. Rule 34 of the Survey and Settlement Rules framed under the Act prescribes that the record-of-rights and the copy of the map as finally published in accordance with the provisions of the Act or deemed to be the record-of-rights and map finally published under the provisions of the Act and supplied to the Tahasildar shall be maintained and kept up-to-date in accordance with rule provided thereunder. 9. It is, therefore, clear that the intention of the Legislature is that, correct and up-to-date map published in a settlement proceeding shall be maintained for future reference. 9. It is, therefore, clear that the intention of the Legislature is that, correct and up-to-date map published in a settlement proceeding shall be maintained for future reference. The Board of Revenue has been vested with the jurisdiction u/s 15(a) of the Act to Suo motu correct any record-of-rights at any time after the date of final publication. The intention is, therefore, clear that if a mistake or an error in a settlement map comes to the notice of the Board of Revenue, the same can be corrected by exercise of power u/s 15(a) of the Act, which does not prescribe any period of limitation and aptly so, as the map and the record-of-rights are to be correctly maintained up-to-date. 10. In this back drop, the revision of the Petitioner, wherein it was brought to the notice of the Joint Commissioner-opposite party No. 1 that the finally published map is erroneous on the face of it, should not have been thrown out on the ground of delay and the Joint Commissioner should have exercised his suo motu jurisdiction u/s 15(a) of the Act. This is not a case where a correction of the map is sought for by a land owner on the basis that the area in the record-of-rights does not tally with the map, in which case, there may be conflict of interest between two lands owners. Limitation prescribed u/s 15(b)' of the Act in such case would have conferred certain rights on the adversary. But in the present case, there is no conflict between the Petitioner and any other land owner in the vicinity and the Petitioner only claims that though there is no existence of any water channel over his recorded plots but such a water channel has been shown in the finally published map. 11. Considering the above, this Court is of the view that the impugned order under Annexure-6 passed on 06.06.2006 is not sustainable. Accordingly, the said order under Annexure-6 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Joint Commissioner-opp. party No. 1, who shall hear the revision afresh on merit and, if necessary, may obtain a report from the concerned Tahasildar with regard to the factual position of existence of a water channel on the spot. The revision shall be disposed of by 31st October, 2008. The matter is remitted back to the Joint Commissioner-opp. party No. 1, who shall hear the revision afresh on merit and, if necessary, may obtain a report from the concerned Tahasildar with regard to the factual position of existence of a water channel on the spot. The revision shall be disposed of by 31st October, 2008. On production of a certified copy of this order by the Petitioner, before the Joint Commissioner-opposite party No. 1 within a period of two weeks from today, the opposite party No. 1 shall take necessary steps to dispose of the revision in accordance with law within a period stipulated above, by affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Final Result : Allowed