JUDGMENT : Indrajit Mahanty, J. - In this writ petition, the Petitioner Surendranath Panda has sought to challenge the order dated 19.01.1989 passed in O.L.R. Appeal Case No. 33 of 1996 (Annexure-7) by the Officer on Special Duty (Land Reforms), Puri as well as the order dated 12.3.1993 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate, Puri in O.L.R. Revision Case No. 9 of.1989 (Annexure-8). 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the Petitioner, Surendra Nath Panda has filed a petition u/s 36-A of the O.L.R. Act and the same was registered as O.L.R. Case No. 2377 of 1975, before the Court of the Addl. Tahasildar, Puri. That proceeding came to be concluded by an order dated 29.4.1986 of the learned Addl. Tahasildar who came to hold that more than 10 years have been passed due to time killing tactics by the landlord (OP) and that more than 1 year has been spent by the Court waiting for appearance of the landlord Sri Laxmidhar Panda. On consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as the fact, that the landlord had been set ex parte on 20.12.1985 and on perusal of the documents produced by the Petitioner in support of his stand that he was a tenant (Bhag Chasi) under the landlord as well as the compromise petition moved by the landlord Sri Laxmidhar Panda and the final Judgment given by the Sessions Judge, Puri in the Criminal Revision No. 171 of 1992, the learned Revenue Officer allowed the petition declaring the Petitioner as a "raiyat" in respect of the land schedule given below: Khata Plqt Area 172 273 AO = 98 268 AO = 71 A1 = 71 3. The said order of the Additional Tahasildar, Puri was challenged in appeal by one Pitambar Panda, who was Opposite Party No. 2 (intervener) before the Additional Tahasildar, Puri, which was registered as OLR Appeal No. 33 of 1986 before the Court of the Officer on special duty (Land Reforms), Puri. It would relevant to note here that, the landlord, Laxmidhar Panda did not prefer any appeal against that order of the Additional Tahasildar. That appeal filed by said Pitambar Panda claiming to be the tenant under Laxmidhar Panda, was allowed by the order dated 19.1.1989, remanding the matter to the Revenue Officer. It would relevant to note here that, the landlord, Laxmidhar Panda did not prefer any appeal against that order of the Additional Tahasildar. That appeal filed by said Pitambar Panda claiming to be the tenant under Laxmidhar Panda, was allowed by the order dated 19.1.1989, remanding the matter to the Revenue Officer. It would relevant to note that the learned Appellate Authority reached at his conclusion on the basis of a finding that the Revenue Officer, did not make any attempt to get attendance of the landlord Laxmidhar Panda "by making sufficient wide publication". Learned Appellate Authority came to conclude that the "Court below has failed to use all due and reasonable steps to serve notice on the landlord Sri Laxmidhar Panda". Apart from this ground, the Lower Appellate Authority held that in terms of Section 36-A, it was obligatory on the part of the revenue officer to "consult the local committee" before arriving at the final decision and in the absence of any such consultation, the order of the Revenue Officer is bad in law. 4. Being aggrieved the order passed by the Lower Appellate Authority the present Petitioner filed a revision before the A.D.M. (Land Records) which was registered as OLR Revision Case No. 9 of 1989. That revision filed by the Petitioner came to be rejected by the order dated 12.3.1993, affirming the order of remand passed by the learned Lower Appellate Authority. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Sri Srikant Kumar Sahoo has advanced extensive arguments in support of his prayer seeking quashing of Annexures 7 and 8 and submitted that the Petitioner is the 'Bhag chasi' in respect of the disputed land and that there was no justifiable reason for setting aside the order of the revenue officer and directing remand of the matter for fresh adjudication. Learned Counsel sought to challenge Annexure-7, inter alia, on the ground that the appellate authority ought not to have remanded the matter on the ground of insufficiency of service of notice on the landlord Laxmidhar Panda since the said Laxmidhar Panda did not file any appeal challenging the order of the Revenue Officer and since the notice issued by the Revenue Officer on said Laxmidhar Panda on being found sufficient, he had been set ex parte. Learned Counsel submitted that Sri Laxmidhar Panda, the landlord, never sought for setting aside the order setting him ex parte. Learned Counsel submitted that Sri Laxmidhar Panda, the landlord, never sought for setting aside the order setting him ex parte. The Revenue Officer finding that the landlord Sri Laxmidhar Panda had been set ex parte since 20.12.1985, disposed of OLR Case No. 2377 of 1975 vide his final order dated 29.4.1986. The learned Counsel submitted that, the issue as to whether notice was sufficient (on Sri Laxmidhar Panda) or not, has not been raised by him in appeal and instead, the intervenor Sri Pitambar Panda claiming to be a tenant (Bhag chasi) of the landlord, has raised such an issue. Learned Counsel further submitted that the observation of the learned Lower Appellate Court to the effect that the Revenue Officer should have to use all due and reasonable diligence to ensure appearance of the landlord Sri Laxmidhar Panda, was without any basis, since the record of the proceeding before the revenue officer indicates sufficiency of notice and law does not mandate any further responsibility on the revenue officer to secure the attendance of the landlord. To the further finding of the Lower Appellate Authority to the effect that non-consultation with the local committee as contemplated u/s 36-A of the Act, vitiates the entire proceeding, learned Counsel submitted that in the present case, since no local committee had been constituted for that area, the question or requirement of consultation with such a local committee does not arise in the present case. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further assailed the revisional order (Annexure-8) by stating that the Revisional Authority having accepted the contention of the Petitioner, to the effect that, the order has been passed by the Revenue Officer directing issue of notice to the landlord on 13.5.1985. The Revisional Authority further found that on 1.7.1985 the order was passed for issue of fresh notice to all parties and order dated 20.4.1985 indicates that notice No. 449/85 dated 20.4.1985 issued on general public in the suit village was found to have been served by bit of drums as per the endorsement. The Revisional Authority further found that on 1.7.1985 the order was passed for issue of fresh notice to all parties and order dated 20.4.1985 indicates that notice No. 449/85 dated 20.4.1985 issued on general public in the suit village was found to have been served by bit of drums as per the endorsement. Therefore, the revisional authority have come to the finding that notice had been issued to Laxmidhar Panda for his appearance on 13.5.1985 and thereafter, on 19.8.1985 and relying on the endorsement of the process surveyor, Anand Bhoi, concluded that the opposite party landlord had refused to receive notice and service was effected by affixture on the front door of his residence. The revisional authority has also taken notice of the fact that registered notice with AD was returned on 12.5.1985 with the endorsement that the "addressee has left without instructions" and hence, the same was returned to the sender. Therefore, the revenue officer observed that despite several steps being taken for appearance of the landlord, he was found avoiding receive of notice and once again directed issue of fresh notice under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC fixing the date to 20.5.1985. It was found from the case record that the substituted notice was issued on 21.11.1985. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the revisional authority ultimately came to the finding that notice was found to have been served on Laxmidhar Panda, the landlord and after having code to the said conclusion, directed that in the "peculiar circumstance" of the case and for the ends of justice further notices afresh were required to be sent to the landlord and therefore, affirmed the order in appeal, directing remand of the matter to the Court of the Revenue Officer. The Revisional Authority also affirmed the finding of the Lower Appellate Authority to the effect that the Revenue Officer had actually not consulted the local committee. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, inter alia, submitted that once the revisional authority has come to a finding that notice on the landlord was sufficient no order of remand should have been passed directing fresh service of notice. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, inter alia, submitted that once the revisional authority has come to a finding that notice on the landlord was sufficient no order of remand should have been passed directing fresh service of notice. Learned Counsel reiterated his argument against this revisional order on the ground of non-consultation with the local committee as contemplated u/s 36-A stating that the Revisional Court as well as the Appellate Court did not take into consideration the fact that no local committee had at all been constituted in that area Learned Counsel along with its note of argument submitted documents obtained by the Petitioner under the Right to Information Act. It appears that the Petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition sought for information from the concerned Tahsildar as to whether any such village committee in the concerned village had been constituted for the period of 1984-86 and 1986-89 and if so, to provide the names of the member of such committee and it appears that in response to such query the Tahasildar has replied by stating that from his records it was ascertained that no such record are available in his office and necessary information obviously was not provided. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Brundaban Chandra Jew Vs. Binod Majhi and Others and in which it has been observed as follows: There is clear provision u/s 36-A of the O.E.A. Act "after consulting the local committee, if any". This goes to show that there may be a local committee and there may not be any local committee. If there is any local committee, the Revenue Officer may consult the said committee. When there is nothing to show that there was any local committee it cannot be presumed that the order is vitiated as the Revenue Officers did not consult the local committee. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the Petitioner had also filed another proceeding before the revenue officer seeking declaration of his tenancy (Bhag Chasi) in OLR Case No. 2379 of 1975. It is asserted by the Petitioner that both the sets of lands were owned by same landlord, namely, Laxmidhar Panda. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the Petitioner had also filed another proceeding before the revenue officer seeking declaration of his tenancy (Bhag Chasi) in OLR Case No. 2379 of 1975. It is asserted by the Petitioner that both the sets of lands were owned by same landlord, namely, Laxmidhar Panda. The lands in OLR Case No. 2377 of 1975 were situated in village Siuli whereas OLR Case No. 2379 of 1975 related to the land located in Mouza Bira Narasinghapur. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner asserted that the relief claimed in both the OLR cases were similar in nature against the same landlord. 8. Mr. R.K. Mahapatra, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2, on the other hand, seriously contended that this writ application ought not to be entertained since under both the impugned orders under Annexures 7 and 8, the Lower Appellate Authority and the revisional authority have merely remanded the matter for adjudication afresh and the Petitioner would obviously have a further opportunity to establish his case. According to the learned Counsel for the opposite party, the present case is not a fit case in which the Hon'ble High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction. 9. On a consideration of the submissions advanced, I am of the view that in the present writ application, essentially two questions arise for adjudication, namely; 1. whether the Appellate and Revisional Courts were correct in directing remand of the matter and further issue of fresh notice to Sri Laxmidhar Panda landlord? 2. whether non-consultation with the local committee u/s 36-A by the Revenue Officer, renders the Revenue Officer's order liable for being set aside? I have discussed both the appellate and revisional orders on the aspect of service of notice on Sri Laxmidhar Panda, landlord. On a perusal of the same it is clear that the Revenue Officer, after having made various attempts to serve notice on the said Laxmidhar Panda, ultimately passed order on 20.12.1985 setting him ex parte. It is only after setting the said Laxmidhar Panda ex parte on 20.12.1985 that final order was passed by the Revenue Officer on 29.4.1986. It is an admitted case that Laxmidhar Panda has not preferred any appeal, or revision challenging that order on the ground of non-service of notice. On the contrary, Sri Pitamber Panda (intervener) has raised the issue of non-service of notice to Laxmidhar Panda, landlord. It is an admitted case that Laxmidhar Panda has not preferred any appeal, or revision challenging that order on the ground of non-service of notice. On the contrary, Sri Pitamber Panda (intervener) has raised the issue of non-service of notice to Laxmidhar Panda, landlord. In view of the above, since no challenge has ever been made by Sri Laxmidhar Panda raising an objection on account of non-service of notice, such an issue being raised by an intervener ought not to have been entertained. It is a clear case where the intervener Sri Pitamber Panda has tried to ride Piggy Back on an assumed plea of landlord, Sri Laxmidhar Panda, who has never filed an appeal or revision challenging the order of the Revenue Officer and therefore, cannot be said to be an aggrieved party. 10. I am further surprised to take note of the fact that though the revisional authority has come to the conclusion that notice on Laxmidhar Panda was adequate, how could he yet direct remand of the matter to the Revenue Officer on the self-same ground and directing fresh notice. I am of the view that once the revisional authority concluded that notice on Laxmidhar Panda was sufficient/adequate, no further order directing remand of the matter and issue of fresh notice to him could have been lawfully passed. 11. In so far as the requirement of consultation with the local committee is concerned, Section 36-A stipulates as follows: Tenant to become raiyat in respect of the whole of the land in certain cases-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, but subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 24, the Revenue Officer may on an application made in that behalf by the tenant within two years from the commencement of the Orissa Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1973 (President's Act, 17 of 1973) and after giving the parties interested an opportunity of being heard and after consulting the Local Committee, if any, declare the whole of the land in cultivation of the tenant to be non-resumable and determine the fair and equitable rent and the compensation payable by the tenant in respect of the land in accordance with the provisions of Section 28 and on such determination, the provisions of Sections 29 to 33 (both inclusive), 35-A and 36 shall, so far as may be, apply. From the response of the Tahasildar to the quarries of the Petitioner, it is apparent that no such village committee had ever been formed and therefore, there is no question of the revenue officer consulting with such village committee. 12. In view of the findings on the issues hereinabove, I am of the considered view that the order of the lower Appellate Authority under Annexure-7 and the order of the revisional authority under Annexure-8 stand vitiated for the reasons recorded hereinabove and therefore, are set aside. However, I affirm the order passed by the Revenue Officer under Annexure-6/4 to the writ application. The authorities are directed to act according to the directions of the Revenue Officer in terms of the order-dated 29.4.1986 under Annexure-6/4. Writ application is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Final Result : Allowed