JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The order passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, in Consolidation Revision Case No. 8/1994 is assailed in all these Writ applications. As the facts and points of law involved in all these Writ applications are same, on the request of Learned Counsel for the parties, the matters were heard together and are disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. The lands in dispute situate in village Pranadeipur which being part and parcel of Athagarh Estate and the Raja of Athagarh was the proprietor. The lands stood recorded in the name of Deities Sri Gopinath Mahaprabhu Bije at Pranadeipur and Sri Chandrasekhar Mahaprabhu Bija at Pranadeipur. The status of the land was Gramakantha Paramboke. The present petitioners claim to be the Marfatdars of the Deities which are a public religious endowments. After the village in which the lands situate came under consolidation in pursuance of a Notification issued under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (for short "the Act), three objection cases were filed by the Marfatdar before the Consolidation Officer u/s 9(3) of the Act praying to record the lands appertaining to L.R. Plot Nos. 575,458, 567,594,573,574,55,107 and 142 as "Gharabari". Another case was also filed by one Banamali Naik claiming to record the lands in his favour. The Consolidation Officer issued notice to all the parties in the objection cases and the parties appeared and adduced their evidence before the Consolidation Officer. After discussing the evidence, the Consolidation Officer observed that Ex-Raja of Athgarh was the proprietor of the lands. He had given the disputed lands along with certain other lands to some Brahmins of the said village who had installed the deities Sri Gopinath Mahaprabhu and Sri Chandrasekhar Mahaprabhbu and were enjoying the lands in lieu of performing their Seva Puja. The nature of the lands was Gramakantha Paramboke. He observed that the lands were distributed among Brahmins and other caste persons who possessed the same in lieu of performing different Seva Puja to the Deity. On the basis of such conclusion the Consolidation Officer held that the lands belonged to the Deity and directed to record the same in the name of the Deity by reflecting separate and exclusive possession of different contesting opposite parties. On the basis of such conclusion the Consolidation Officer held that the lands belonged to the Deity and directed to record the same in the name of the Deity by reflecting separate and exclusive possession of different contesting opposite parties. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of the Consolidation Officer, a number of appeals were filed before the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Berhampur. The Appellate Court clubbed all the cases together and after discussing the available materials observed that the lands were endowed by the Ex-Ruler of Athgarh Estate in favour of the deities Sri Gopinath Mahaprabhu and Sri Chandrasekhar Mohaprabhu Marfat some Brahmin Inamdars who were enjoying the same in lieu of performance of the Seva Puja of the Deities. The Deputy Director further held that other persons were also in possession of the lands in lieu of rendering different other services to the Deities. The further observation of the Deputy Director was that lands being of Gramakantha Paramboke could not be treated as Inam lands and the same belonged to Government. The appellate Court then observed that in consonance with the Government Notification the persons, who were in occupation of the lands having constructed their houses were entitled to settlement of the same in their favour. On the basis of such conclusion the Deputy Director allowed the Appeal Cases filed by the occupants and dismissed the Appeal Cases filed by the Deities directing the lands to be settled in favour of the persons, who were in occupation of the same and had constructed their dwelling houses. 3. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Deputy Director the Deities filed four Revision Cases before the Commissioner, Consolidation. 4. The Commissioner having dismissed the Revision Cases, the present Writ applications have been filed before this Court. According to Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the Commissioner without discussing the materials by cryptic order disposed of the revisions observing that he had gone through the findings of the Learned Deputy Director, Consolidation who had examined the issues and had rightly observed that the disputed lands were not private raiyati lands and had directed settlement of the same in favour of the opposite parties, who were found to be in possession. He further submitted that the Deities being perpetual minors, possessed the disputed lands through human agencies. He further submitted that the Deities being perpetual minors, possessed the disputed lands through human agencies. Thus, the persons who were possessing the lands in lieu of rendering different Seva Puja to the Deities could not be presumed to be persons in Khas possession. Law is well settled that as long as they render Seva Puja, they would have a right to occupy the lands and the day they fail to do so, or commit any illegal act or omission of commission they will be liable to eviction from the lands of the Deities. 5. Mr. Nanda, Learned Counsel for Opposite Parties 4 and 5, (in some cases only Opposite Party No. 4) on the other hand forcefully submitted that the Opposite Parties 4 and 5 are very very poor persons, they belong to downtrodden class of the society, are in occupation of the lands from time immemorial and have constructed their houses. Thus, the Consolidation authorities have rightly settled the lands by recording the same separately in their favour. 6. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials available. It appears that the lands were endowed by Raja of Athgarh for installation of the Deities Sri Gopinath Mahaprabhu and Sri Chandrasekhar Mohaprabhu. In fact a temple was constructed and the Sebayats were in possession of the endowed lands. Some of the Sebakas who were also rendering different Seva Puja to the Deity were permitted to occupy some lands which were endowed by the ex-Intermediary to the Deities. Fact remains, the lands are Gramakantha Paramboke. There is also no dispute that the said lands belonged to the State. Be that as it may, under the consolidation scheme, the authorities under the Act are vested with power to decide right, title and interest and to record the lands in favour of those persons who have title. They have got no jurisdiction or authority to settle the Government lands in favour of any person. Law is well settled that Government lands can be settled only in accordance with the provisions of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act or any other Act in favour of persons who satisfy all the criteria. The Deputy Director however after finding that the lands were Gramakantha Paramboke and belonged to the Government directed to settle the same in favour of Opposite Parties 4 and 5. The Deputy Director however after finding that the lands were Gramakantha Paramboke and belonged to the Government directed to settle the same in favour of Opposite Parties 4 and 5. Such power was not vested upon him under the Act. In consonance with Section 12 of the Act, any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Asst. Consolidation Officer or Consolidation Officer has a right to prefer an appeal in prescribed manner before the Deputy Director. Thus, the appellate authority has jurisdiction either to confirm the order passed by the authority below or to vary the impugned order and allow the appeal. While exercising power under the aforesaid Section, the appellate authority does not have the power to settle the lands in favour of any person. If in course of hearing of the appeal, the Deputy Director found that lands belonged to the Government, the same should have been recorded in Government Khata. It appears that the Appellate Court lost sight of the provisions of law and the Commissioner also without considering the entire facts of the case in proper perspective or discussing the evidence on record and/or respective cases simply endorsed the view expressed by the appellate authority. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the order passed by the Deputy Director and the Commissioner, Consolidation cannot be sustained. However perusal of the entire materials reveals that the Petitioners have failed to substantiate their respective cases. Neither any document was available with regard to the origin of the lands nor were any materials produced with regard to the Sabak settlement. No materials had also been produced by Opposite Parties 4 and 5 to reveal that they were in continuous possession of the disputed lands, and, if so, on what right, and whether that possession was permissive or adverse to the Deities. All these disputes have to be dealt with to arrive at a just decision. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to quash the orders passed in the appeals as well the revisions, vide Annexures-1,2 and 3 and remit the matters back to the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Berhampur with a direction to decide all the appeals de novo after giving adequate opportunity to all the parties, and does so. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to quash the orders passed in the appeals as well the revisions, vide Annexures-1,2 and 3 and remit the matters back to the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Berhampur with a direction to decide all the appeals de novo after giving adequate opportunity to all the parties, and does so. The Deputy Director shall permit the parties to adduce their evidence if deemed necessary and dispose of the appeals as expeditiously as possible strictly in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observation/direction all the Writ applications are disposed of.