JUDGMENT S. PANDA, J. : Both the writ petitions having involved same subject matters, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. OJC No.7967 of 1998 has been filed challenging the order dated 31.5.1998 passed by the Addl.District Magistrate, Nuapada in OLR Appeal No.6 of 1997 confirming the order dated 2.9.1997 passed by the Sub-Collector, Nuapada in RMC No.5 of 1994 and OJC No.7966 of 1998 has been filed challenging the order dated 31.5.1998 passed by the said Addl.District Magistrate in OLR Appeal No.7 of 1997 confirming the order dated 23.9.1997 passed by the Sub-Collector, Nuapada in RMC No.3 of 1994. 3. The facts, as narrated in OJC No.7967 of 1998, are as follows : On the basis of a report submitted by the Revenue Inspector, Tarbod at the instance of opposite parties 3 to 5 who are sons of late Sadasiba Sabar of Palasipani, the recorded tenant, a pro¬ceeding under Section 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (in short, “the Act”) in RMC No.5 of 1994 was initiated. Notice was issued to petitioners 1 and 2. The said notice returned with endorsement that there was no such person in village Mundagan. Thereafter, notice was published as provided under Order 5 Rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Code. Thereafter the Sub-Collector by order dated 25.9.1997 considering the materials available on record directed restoration of the case land to the legal heirs of the recoded tenant-Sadabisa Sabar from petitioners 1 and 2 holding that the transaction was not genuine. Petitioners having come to know about the aforesaid order filed OLR Appeal No.6 of 1997 and produced registered sale deed Nos.180/79 and 181/79 executed by Sadasiba Sabar. They stated that petitioner No.1-Shyam Kumar Majhi and Sadasiba Sabar are Scheduled Tribes, ‘Mu¬nda’ by caste. Petitioner No.2 is the power of attorney holder of petitioner No.1 and ROR published in the year 1993 stands in the name of petitioner No.1. Rent receipts and caste certificate issued by the Tahasildar to petitioner No.1 were also filed. They impleaded petitioner No.3 stating therein that petitioner No.1 transferred the said land in favour of petitioner No.3-Raj Kumar Sahu son of Sri Ramabhajan Sahu. the appeal was dismissed on 31st May, 1998 by the Addl.District Magistrate, Nuapada. Being ag¬grieved by the said order of the appellate Court, OJC No.7967 of 1998 has been filed. 4. They impleaded petitioner No.3 stating therein that petitioner No.1 transferred the said land in favour of petitioner No.3-Raj Kumar Sahu son of Sri Ramabhajan Sahu. the appeal was dismissed on 31st May, 1998 by the Addl.District Magistrate, Nuapada. Being ag¬grieved by the said order of the appellate Court, OJC No.7967 of 1998 has been filed. 4. In OJC No.7966 of 1998 the Sub-Collector, Nuapada initiated RMC No.3 of 1994 under Section 23 of the Act in respect of Ac.12.23 decimals of land on the application filed by one Madhusudan Sabar and one Kumatlal Majhi son of Rama Chandra Majhi. The caste of the purchaser has been mentioned as “Ganda” in registered sale deed No.183 of 1979. The witnesses produced by the applicant stated that Kumatlal Majhi is the nephew of Narayan Sahu and he was never in cultivable possession of the disputed land. Rather, Narayan Sahu is in possession of the land and cultivating the same and also residing by constructing a house. They also produced Form No.4 of Settlement Camp, Tarobad wherein Narayan Sahu had applied to change the name of Khatadar in Hal Khata No.38, from Kumutlal Sahu son of Rama Chandra Sahu to Kusal Sahu son of Narayan Sahu. Notice issued to Kumatlal Majhi son of Ramachandra Majhi through Tahasildar returned unserved with a note that Kumatlal Majhi was not residing in the same village. Thereafter notice was issued again on 8.10.1996 which was received back with a note that no such person in the name of Kumatlal Majhi was residing in the said village. Notice was thereafter issued under Order 5 Rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Code for wide publication of the same in different manner. In spite of the said notice, nobody appeared in the Court. There¬fore, the Sub-Collector came to the conclusion that no such person, namely, Kumatlal Majhi son of Rama Chandra Majhi was available in the said village and directed that the land in question should be restored to the legal heirs of the recorded tenant. Being aggrieved by the said order, Kumatlal Majhi and Narayan Sahu filed OLR Appeal No.7 of 1997 before the Addl. District Magistrate, Nuapada. The appellate authority reiterated the same facts that the notice was not served on them and consid¬ering the materials available on record and the evidence adduced by the parties, held that two vakalatnamas had been filed from the side of the appellants. District Magistrate, Nuapada. The appellate authority reiterated the same facts that the notice was not served on them and consid¬ering the materials available on record and the evidence adduced by the parties, held that two vakalatnamas had been filed from the side of the appellants. One bore the signature of Narayan Sahu and Kumatlal Majhi. The second bore the signature of Narayan Sahu and Kumatlal Majhi though the names of the appellants were written to be Shyam Kumar Majhi and Narayan Kumar Sahu. They did not produce the original sale deed. He further held that Narayan Sahu is in possession of the disputed land and he had also taken steps in the settlement camp by filing objection cases to change the name of Kumutlal Majhi to Kumutlal Sahu. So holding, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal and directed that the land should be restored to the original recorded tenant. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in OJC No.7967 of 1998 submitted that notice was issued to petitioner No.1 with wrong address and without hearing him the Sub-Collector passed the order and the appellate authority did not consider the said fact; rather dismissed the appeal confirming the finding of the Sub-Collector. Therefore, the said orders are liable to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party Nos.3 to 5 submitted that against the order passed by the appellate authori¬ty, revision is maintainable under Section 59 of the Act. Since an alternative remedy is available to the petitioners, the im¬pugned orders need not be interfered with in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in OJC No.7966 of 1998 did not seriously place the writ petition. Since this writ petition contains the disputed questions of fact, he conceded that the parties have adduced evidence in support of their claim before the Courts below. 8. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and after going through the records, it appears that on the basis of RI report the Sub-Collector, Nuapada issued notice to Shyam Kumar son of Bhagabana of village-Mundagaon, P.S. Jonk, Dist. Nuapada, who is opposite party No.2 in the said proceeding and has been shown as purchaser of the disputed land which belongs to Sadasiva Sabar. Nuapada, who is opposite party No.2 in the said proceeding and has been shown as purchaser of the disputed land which belongs to Sadasiva Sabar. The said RI report was in respect of RMC No.3 of 1994 which was initiated against Kumatlal Majhi son of Rama Chandra Majhi, petitioner No.1 in OJC No.7966 of 1998 and Narayan Sahu petitioner No.2 in both the writ petitions. Narayan Sahu was a non-Scheduled Tribe person and he was in possession of the dis¬puted land. From the record, it appears that the disputed area is Ac.12.11 decimals. Narayan Sahu filed his show cause on 3.11.1994 before the Sub-Collector and in his show cause he stated that he was never in possession of the case land. Shyam Kumar Majhi son of Bhagaban Majhi purchased the case land and is in physical possession thereof. Narayan Sahu only helped Shyam Kumar Majhi during the agricultural operation as he has no knowledge about the cultivation. Since the purchaser as well as the recorded tenant belongs to Scheduled Tribe and the case land has already been mutated in favour of purchaser vide Mutation Case No.245 of 1979 and he has been paying the land revenue every year, the proceeding should be dropped. Said Narayan Sahu produced sale deed Nos.181 and 182 of 1979 before the Sub-Collector. The Sub-Collector considered the statement of the witnesses produced by the recorded tenant in support of their claim who stated that Shyam Kumar Majhi is the son of Narayan and ‘Teli’ by caste. He never cultivated the disputed land; rather Narayan Sahu is in possession of the case land and cultivating the same. He also produced Form No.4 of Settlement Camp, Tarbod vide Case No.79/92/19/140 wherein Narayan Sahu applied to the settlement authority to change the name of Khatadar Shyam Kumar Majhi son of Bhagaban Majhi to Shyam Kumar Sahu son of Narayan Sahu in the current settlement. Show-cause notice was issued to Shyam Kumar Sahu son of Narayan Sahu through the Tahasildar, Nuapada vide Memo No.173 dated 30.4.1994. The service return revealed that the notice was duly served with a note of the process server that as Narayan Sahu was absent, on his behalf his son Shyam Kumar Sahu received the notice in presence of the witnesses. Shyam Kumar Sahu was also present before the Sub-Collector on 11.8.1994 along with Narayan Sahu. The service return revealed that the notice was duly served with a note of the process server that as Narayan Sahu was absent, on his behalf his son Shyam Kumar Sahu received the notice in presence of the witnesses. Shyam Kumar Sahu was also present before the Sub-Collector on 11.8.1994 along with Narayan Sahu. It appears that when he received the notice issued, he signed his name as “Shyam Kumar Sahu”, but while putting his signature as a token of being present in the Court, he signed as “Shyam Kumar Majhi”. However, on the same date, Narayan Sahu filed show-cause and the said Shyam Kumar Majhi who appeared in the said Court did not file any show cause. Again thereafter notice was issued to Shyam Kumar Majhi and it returned with a note that there was no such person residing. The Sub-Collector in order to give ample chance to be present and for wide publication, issued notice under Order 5 Rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Code vide memo No.5525 dated 20.8.1997. In spite of such public notices in different manner, the said Shyam Kumar did not appear in the Court. Since Narayan Sahu was in possession of the case land, the Sub-Collector passed the order that there is no person in the name of Shyam Kumar Majhi son of Bhagaban Majhi in the village Mundagaon, the so-called purchaser of the disputed land. Therefore, the transaction was not genuine and the case land should be restored to the legal heirs of the recorded tenant and directed the Tahasildar for delivery of possession. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Sub-Collector, Shyam Kumar Majhi, Narayan Sahu and Rajkumar Sahu filed OLR Appeal No.6 of 1997 before the Addl. District Magistrate, Nuapa¬da. 9. In the appellate Court, they stated that they are the recorded legal owners of the case land and Rajkumar Sahu is included in the appellate Court as he purchased the land from Shyam Kumar Majhi after obtaining due permission in Revenue Misc. Case No.12 of 1988 under Section 22 of the Act in favour of Shyam Kumar Majhi to transfer the land to one Rambhajan Sahu, father of Rajkumar Sahu. The record had been prepared in the mutation case and the name of Shyam Kumar had been mutated. Case No.12 of 1988 under Section 22 of the Act in favour of Shyam Kumar Majhi to transfer the land to one Rambhajan Sahu, father of Rajkumar Sahu. The record had been prepared in the mutation case and the name of Shyam Kumar had been mutated. Therefore, the transaction was valid and the proceeding initiated by the legal heirs of Sadasiv Sabar was to be dropped. In the said appeal, the respondents contended that the purchaser Shyam Kumar is the son of Narayan Sahu and he changed the name from “Sahu” to “Majhi” to avoid protection under Section 22 of the Act and in spite of public notice, said Shyam Kumar did not appear before the Sub-Collector and kept himself out of Court lest he would be identified as Shyam Kumar Sahu son of Narayan Sahu and before the settlement authorities, Narayan Sahu applied to change the surname of Shyam Kumar Majhi along with address that he is the son of Narayan Sahu and in the sale deed also intentionally he had stated his surname as “Majhi”. They also pointed out the different made and language of signature of Shyam Kumar reflected in different papers and deeds. So also ROR No.140 and ROR No.102 reveal that those documents stand in the name of Narayan Sahu and Jogeswar Sahu and those are in respect of the present disputed land covered under sale deed No.181/79. 10. The appellate authority took into consideration the Vakalatnamas. One filed by Rajkumar Sahu son of Rambhajan Sahu along with Narayan Sahu, another by which Shyam Kumar Majhi through attorney holder Narayan Sahu and Rajkumar Sahu appeared and the third, in which the name of Rajkumar Sahu appeared in Hindi and the name of Shyam Kumar Majhi appeared in Oriya but deleted and the name of Narayan Sahu appeared in English. The claim of Rajkumar Sahu had not been filed and nothing explained for impleading him as one of the appellants. Before the Sub-Collector, Shyam Kumar Majhi signed in Vakalatnama but did not appear all along. In ROR No.116/52, Shyam Kumar Majhi or Sahu managed to get the land recorded in his favour but it is sur¬prised to see that the column “caste” had been left blank. Naray¬an Sahu had taken steps in the Settlement Office to change the surname of his son from “Majhi” to “Sahu”. In ROR No.116/52, Shyam Kumar Majhi or Sahu managed to get the land recorded in his favour but it is sur¬prised to see that the column “caste” had been left blank. Naray¬an Sahu had taken steps in the Settlement Office to change the surname of his son from “Majhi” to “Sahu”. From Revenue Case No.12 of 1998 where permission under Section 22 of the Act had been accorded in favour of Rambhajan Sahu father of Rajkumar Sahu, it appears that the permission had been accorded in favour of one Bhajanlal Sahu. Therefore, Rajkumar had no cause of action to file the appeal as he was not a party to the said transaction. Identify of Shyam Kumar had been challenged before the Sub-Collector who, on being proved, came to the conclusion that no Shyam Kumar Majhi exits. The Sub-Collector on the basis of the RI report and the evidence adduced before him came to the conclusion that Narayan Sahu was in unauthorised occupation of the disputed land having no colour of title, interest and possession for himself and there exists no person like Shyam Kumar Majhi. He executed the power of attorney in favour of Narayan Sahu to blow hot and cold by arranging such mischief. The Sub-Collector right¬ly directed to restore the property as per law to the respondents and also directed the Tahasildar to review the caste certificate given by Tahasildar and take action against the officer and staff concerned. On such finding, he confirmed the order passed by the Sub-Collector. 11. From the above narration of facts and from the record it appears that both Sub-Collector as well as Addl.District Magistrate, Nuapada had taken into consideration the entire factual aspect of the case and how the present petitioners at different stages presented themselves before the authorities with different context. When their identity was challenged before the Sub-Collector, at one point of time they presented themselves as the purchases and Narayan Sahu being the attorney holder of the said purchaser but thereafter they failed to appear before the said Court which reveals that they tried to suppress some materi¬al facts before the original authorities. Since those are the disputed questions of fact and have already been properly dealt with by the Sub-Collector as well as appellate authority who had a better chance to evaluate the appearance and conduct of the parties as they appeared before the said forum. 12. Since those are the disputed questions of fact and have already been properly dealt with by the Sub-Collector as well as appellate authority who had a better chance to evaluate the appearance and conduct of the parties as they appeared before the said forum. 12. Admittedly, the parties have alternative remedy to file revision under Section 59 of the Act. They have not availed the same. The apex Court in the case of Tin Plate Co. of India Ltd. v. State of Bihar and others reported in AIR 1999 SC 74 and Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan & others reported in AIR 2001 SC 3208 has held that writ should not generally be entertained if statute provides for remedy of appeal and even if it has been admitted, parties should be relegated to the appellate forum. 13. In the case of Sheela Devi v. Jaspal Singh reported in (1999) 1 SCC 209, the apex Court has held that if the statute itself provides for a remedy of revision, writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked. 14. In the case of U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey & another reported in (2005) 8 SCC 264 , the apex Court has held that the writ petition should not be entertained when the statutory remedy is available under the Act unless exceptional circumstances are made out. (Emphasis supplied). 15. Here, in the present case, the petitioners have not made out any exceptional circumstance and they have availed the opportunity to putforth their case before the appellate authority who considered their case and after taking into account the evidence and other materials available on record came to the findings which are pure questions of fact. Therefore, this Court will not consider or re-evaluate those evidence or material while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Since the petitioners have raised the questions of disputed fact, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider the same. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.