JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The order dated 23rd December, 2003 passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation, Cuttack in R.C. Case No. 1508 of 2003 is assailed in this writ petition. 2. The dispute has a chequered career. Admittedly, one Krupasindhu was the common ancestor. He had three sons, being Raghab, Sanatan, Krushna, Raghab's branch became extinct after the death of two sons of Raghab. The dispute is between the branch of Sanatan and Krushna. The Petitioners are the sons of Chaitanya, son of Sanatan. The opposite party No. 1 is the son of Balaram belonging to the branch of Krushna. Krushna died in the year 1907. After the village where the lands are situated was brought within the fold of Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972, hereinafter to be called as "the Act", in short, land registers were prepared on the basis of 1931 record of rights. The said record of rights reveals that 2/3rd of the properties were recorded in favour of Chaitanya's branch and 1/3rd in favour of Balaram. After preparation of the land register, objection case was filed by the Petitioners before the A.C.O., Jagatsinghpur camp at Alipingala. The A.C.O. Jagatsinghpur camp at Alipingala disposed of the objection case on compromise/ conciliation on 16th April, 1990 vide Annexure-3. The said order was assailed by the opposite party No. 1 before the Deputy Director in the year 1999 u/s 12 of the Act in Appeal No. 18 of 1999. The stand taken by the opposite party No. 1 was that they had not entered into any compromise before the A.C.O., Jagatsinghpur camp at Alipingala and the order passed by the A.C.O. was unjust and illegal. The appellate authority, however, did not accept the plea taken by the opposite parties and dismissed the appeal in the year 1999. The said order was assailed before the Commissioner by filing a revision u/s 37 of the Act. The Commissioner disposed of the revision at the admission stage without issuing notice to the opposite parties (the present Petitioners) and remitted the matter to the Deputy Director. However, it was observed that if the present Petitioners, who are the opposite parties in the revision were aggrieved, it would be open for them to file a petition within one month. 3. Mr. However, it was observed that if the present Petitioners, who are the opposite parties in the revision were aggrieved, it would be open for them to file a petition within one month. 3. Mr. Bose, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners neither received any notice from the Commissioner nor from the opposite party No. 1 and they were ignorant about the order passed by the Commissioner. They came to know about the same only after receiving the notice from the Deputy Director. But by the said date, the period of one month was over since long and hence, no petition could be filed by the Petitioners before the Commissioner, Consolidation. The appellate authority after hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials allowed the appeal, set aside the compromise order passed earlier by the A.C.O., Jagatsinghpur camp at Alipingala and directed to change the recording as per the order passed in the appeal. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present Petitioners preferred a revision. The revisional court, as would be evident from a perusal of the impugned order after discussing all the materials, came to the conclusion that the genealogy relied upon by the parties, the registered will dated 6th July, 1918, unregistered family arrangement deed dated 25th December, 1926 were not produced in the lower court and so the genuineness of the aforesaid documents has not been proved, consequently, without relying upon any of the documents dismissed the revision. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners have approached this Court. According to Mr. Bose, the Commissioner acted illegality and with material irregularity in not accepting the genealogy, registered will and the deed of settlement only on the ground that the said documents were not filed before the courts below. Mr. Bose further submitted that there was no occasion for the Petitioners to file the said documents before the A.C.O., Jagatsinghpur camp at Alipingala as the objection case was disposed of by conciliation. So far as the appeal is concerned, according to Mr. Bose, the documents were in fact filed before the Deputy Director, but then he did not take note of the same. 5. This submission is repudiated by the Learned Counsel for the opposite parties. 6. Be that as it may, fact remains, the objection case was disposed of by the A.C.O., Jagatsinghpur camp at Alipingala on conciliation. Bose, the documents were in fact filed before the Deputy Director, but then he did not take note of the same. 5. This submission is repudiated by the Learned Counsel for the opposite parties. 6. Be that as it may, fact remains, the objection case was disposed of by the A.C.O., Jagatsinghpur camp at Alipingala on conciliation. In consonance with the Orissa Consolidation Act, the A.C.O has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute on merits. He can dispose of the objection case only by compromise or by conciliation or refer the case to C.O. That apart, the order passed by the A.C.O, Jagatsinghpur camp at Alipingala was not assailed before the appellate authority for quite some years. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal at the first instance, mainly, on the ground that the order passed by the A.C.O was justified and appeal does not lie against the compromise order. The said order has been set aside subsequently by the revisional authority, but without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. The revisional authority at the first instance while setting aside the order passed by the appellate authority should have remitted the matter to the Consolidation Officer more so because the controversies could not have been decided by the A.C.O, Jagatsinghpur camp at Alipingala. Without doing so, the revisional authority remitted the matter to the Deputy Director. According to Mr. Bose, certain documents were filed before the appellate court, but he did not take note of the same. According to the Learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 no document was filed. The revisional authority, on the other hand, observed that the genuineness of the documents having not been determined, the same could not have been relied upon. On perusal of the documents, it appears that they have some bearing on the dispute. 7. (SIC) In the aforesaid scenario, this Court feels that ends of justice and equity will be better served if the order passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Jagatsinghpur in Remand Revision Case No. 452 of 1999 (Annexure-2) and the order passed by the Commissioner in Consolidation Revision Case No. 1508 of 2003 (Annexure-1) are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Consolidation officer, Alipingal or any other officer in charge for de novo disposal and I direct accordingly. To lessen the span of litigation, this Court further directs both the parties, who are represented before this Court through their counsel, to appear before the Consolidation Officer on 18th May, 2009. On production of certified copy of this order, the said authority shall do well to take up the matter and dispose of the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Final Result : Dismissed