JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Mr. P.K. Padhi learned Counsel for opposite party No. 5 files an affidavit intimating about the death of opposite party No. 3 on 16.08.2008 and also intimating that there is no necessity of substitution because opposite party No. 5 is the sole legal heir of opposite party No. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has no objection to that affidavit. Accordingly, the matter relating to substitution is disposed of and the writ petition is heard and the judgment is as follows: 2. Petitioners in this writ petition were subjected to Revenue Misc. Case No. 10 of 1999 under Regulation-II of 1956 on the ground that they are in unauthorized occupation of Ac. 0.040 decimals of land @ one acre is equal to thousand decimals vide Sabik Plot No. 332. In the current settlement that has been recorded as Hal Plot Nos. 1471, 1472 and 1473 in Mouza Mahulpalli under Plant Site Police Station, Rourkela. Opposite parties 3 and 4 as the grandsons of the recorded tenant Etwa Oram and opposite party No. 5 as the son of opposite party No. 3 pursued that litigation claiming relief of eviction of the Petitioners. Before the Officer on Special (Duty L.Rs.), Panposh, Petitioners, inter alia, put forth their case that Goura Mohan Sandil belonging to Scheduled Tribe purchased Ac. 0.060 decimals of land from Sabik Plot No. 332 and on the basis of negotiation between the Petitioners and Goura Mohan, they purchased the disputed land on the basis of permission granted by the Revenue Authority on the application of Goura Mohan to sale the case land and therefore they are not in unauthorized occupation of the case land. 3. On hearing the parties and making verification of records, Officer on Special Duty rejected such claim and contention of the Petitioners, inter alia, on the ground that Goura Mohan Sandil was found to be in possession of Ac. 0.055 decimals of land from Plot No. 332 and, therefore, he could not have transferred Ac. 0.040 decimals to the Petitioners. Accordingly, the Officer-on-Special Duty found the Petitioners to be in unauthorized occupation of Ac. 0.040 decimals of land from Sabik Plot No. 332. 4. Petitioners preferred appeal, registered as R.A. Case No. 34 of 2003 and learned Addl. District Magistrate, Sundergarh heard and disposed of the appeal on 04.02.2004 by dismissing the appeal. 0.040 decimals to the Petitioners. Accordingly, the Officer-on-Special Duty found the Petitioners to be in unauthorized occupation of Ac. 0.040 decimals of land from Sabik Plot No. 332. 4. Petitioners preferred appeal, registered as R.A. Case No. 34 of 2003 and learned Addl. District Magistrate, Sundergarh heard and disposed of the appeal on 04.02.2004 by dismissing the appeal. In substance, learned A.D.M. appreciated aforesaid logic of the Officer on Special Duty and confirmed the order of eviction. It appears from Annexure-14, certified copy of the Khatians that total extent of Plot No. 332 is Ac. 0.30, i.e. Ac. 0.300 decimals, out of which Ac. 0.060 decimals was sold to Goura Mohan and as claimed by the Petitioners, out of that, Ac. 0.040 was purchased by the Petitioners. The Officer on Special Duty did not make proper enquiry as to which area out of Plot No. 332 was purchased by Goura Mohan and whether the property purchased by the Petitioners is within that area or beyond that and to what extent. If the case land of Ac. 0.040 decimals was purchased by Goura Mohan and after obtaining permission to sale, Petitioners purchased and possessed that area, then the recorded tenant cannot have a say on the sale transaction. On the other hand, if disputed area of Ac. 0.040 decimals was not purchased by Goura Mohan, then he had no authority to alienate that property in favour of the Petitioners and in that event, Petitioners would be liable for eviction being in unauthorized occupation because Goura Mohan could not have transferred that land belonging to opposite parties 3 to 5. Fresh/further enquiry be made accordingly. Claimants (opposite parties 3 to 5) be provided with opportunity to adduce further evidence, if any, from their side in addition to the evidence gathered in course of further enquiry. Petitioners be provided with opportunity to adduce their rebuttal evidence, besides proving their contention regarding existence of valid title and possession. 5. Fresh/further enquiry be made accordingly. Claimants (opposite parties 3 to 5) be provided with opportunity to adduce further evidence, if any, from their side in addition to the evidence gathered in course of further enquiry. Petitioners be provided with opportunity to adduce their rebuttal evidence, besides proving their contention regarding existence of valid title and possession. 5. For the reasons stated above, orders of both the Courts are quashed for recording mechanical order without due application of mind to the evidence and disputes involved in the case and the proceeding is remanded to the Officer on Special Duty, if he is still functioning and in his absence to the statutory authority under Regulation-II of 1956 to afresh decide the dispute and dispose of the same expeditiously and, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Under the circumstance, parties are directed to bear their respective costs of litigation. The L.C.R. be returned back to the Court below immediately together with a copy of this order. Final Result : Allowed