JUDGMENT A.S. NAIDU, J. : The petitioners, who claim to be the inhabitants of village Balabudhi in the district of Balasore, have filed this writ petition challenging, inter alia, the order dated December 29, 2005 passed by the Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Bhubaneswar in Consolidation Revision No.498 of 2003 dismissing the said revision and thereby confirming the order dated September 23, 2002 passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, opposite party No.3 in Remand Appeal No.5 of 2001. By the said orders, the Consolidation authorities had directed to record the suit land in favour of opposite party No.4. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the short facts which may be necessary for effectual appreciation of the inter se disputes are as follows : The disputed land, as it appears from the pleadings was an Anabadi land of ex-intermediary Sri Manmatha Nath Dev and Mano¬ranjan Dev. Bhagaban Behera, the predecessor in interest of opposite party No.4, it appears was inducted as a tenant in respect of an area of Ac.0.063 dec. appertaining to C.S. Plot No.302 and an “Amalanama Patta” was executed by the ex-intermediary in his favour on March 3, 1944 in token of such inductment. It is claimed that possession of the land was deliv¬ered to said Bhagaban Behera, and he remained in cultivating possession thereof, paid rent and obtained rent receipts from the intermediary year after year. 3. After promulgation of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951, the intermediary right vested with the State Government. In consonance with the provisions of the said Act, it appears, the ex-intermediary submitted ‘Rafa’ to the Government and on the basis of the same, “tenancy ledger” was opened in favour of Bhagaban Behera and he was deemed to be a tenant under the State in consonance with Section 8(1) of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act and rent was received from him by the Tahasildar regularly from the date of vesting. 4. In consonance with the notification issued under the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act, 1972 the mouza in which the disputed lands are situated came within the purview of the consolidation opera¬tion. Thereafter land register was prepared in the name of Bhagaban Behera in respect of the disputed lands. Disputing the recording, an objection was filed by some of the villagers, which was registered as Objection Case No.3982 of 1996. Thereafter land register was prepared in the name of Bhagaban Behera in respect of the disputed lands. Disputing the recording, an objection was filed by some of the villagers, which was registered as Objection Case No.3982 of 1996. Relying upon order passed in O.E.A. Case No. 48/55-56 of Board of Revenue, the objection case was allowed. Being aggrieved by the said order, Bhagaban Behera approached the revisional authority. On being satisfied that the order was passed by the Consolidation Officer, without affording any opportunity to the petitioner, the same was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Deputy Direc¬tor, Consolidation for de novo hearing. The Deputy Director after vivid discussion of the evidence, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that O.E.A. Case No.48/55-56 was initiated by one Guhina Behera with a prayer to record the disputed land in his favour. After field enquiry and on being satisfied that the aforesaid person was not in possession as a tenant in respect of the disputed lands, the O.E.A. Collector had dismissed the case. It is observed that Bhagaban was neither a party in the said case nor he was aware with regard to filing of the said case. Conse¬quently, it was held that the order passed in the O.E.A. case was not binding on the petitioners and the order passed in the objec¬tion case basing upon such order was illegal. The Deputy Director relying upon Section 8(1) of the O.E.A. Act held that enough evidence both oral and documentary was available on record to reveal that Bhagaban Behera was in fact inducted as a tenant by the intermediary and he was in cultivating possession of the lands on the date of vesting and was paying rent to the interme¬diary and thereafter in consonance with the tenancy ledger, he was deemed to be a tenant of the State as per Section 8(1) of the O.E.A. Act. Rent was also accepted from him by the Tahasildar after vesting and as such, recording of the land in his favour needs no interference. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed a revision before the Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Orissa, Bhubaneswar which was registered as Consolidation Revision No.498 of 2003. Rent was also accepted from him by the Tahasildar after vesting and as such, recording of the land in his favour needs no interference. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed a revision before the Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Orissa, Bhubaneswar which was registered as Consolidation Revision No.498 of 2003. The Commissioner also after going through the material available, arrived at a conclu¬sion that the order passed in the O.E.A. case in which Bhagawan was not a party, was not binding upon him. According to the Commissioner, Bhagaban Behera was able to establish that he was inducted as a tenant by the intermediary. The said assertions made by Bhagaban Behera was fortified by the “Amalanama Patta” executed by the intermediary on 15.3.1944 and the ‘Rafa’ submit¬ted by the ex-intermediary in his favour basing upon which tenan¬cy register was prepared. It was further held that he was accept¬ed as a tenant in consonance with Section 8(1) of the O.E.A. Act and rent was accepted by the Government right from the date of vesting and thereafter. After discussing all the facts and cir¬cumstances, the Commissioner held that the petitioners had failed to dislodge the findings of the Director, Consolidation and as such, the revision has no merit. 5. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners reiter¬ated the stand taken by him before the Deputy Director as well as the Commissioner and submitted that the lands being Anabadi in character and as the villagers are in possession of the same and using it for communal purposes, recording of the lands in favour of Bhagaban Behera was not justified. 6. These submissions are strongly repudiated by Dr. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties. According to Dr. Rath, the present petitioners are strangers to the litigation. They have not filed objection cases assailing the recording made in favour of Bhagaban in the land register pre¬pared under the Consolidation Act. According to Dr. Rath, Bhaga¬ban Behera, the predecessor in interest of opposite party No.4 was inducted as a tenant by the ex intermediary by means of a “Amalanama Patta”, he was paying rent to the intermediary, tenan¬cy ledger was prepared in his favour and as would be evident from the oral evidence, he was in cultivating possession of the property on the date of vesting. Relying upon Section 8(1) of the O.E.A. Act, Dr. Relying upon Section 8(1) of the O.E.A. Act, Dr. Rath submitted that there is no provision under the O.E.A. Act to initiate a proceeding by a tenant. On the other hand, if the authorities are satisfied that any person, who was immediately before the date of vesting of estate with the Govern¬ment was in possession of any property as a tenant under the intermediary, he/she on and from the date of vesting, shall be deemed to be a tenant under the State Government and shall hold the land in the same rights and subject to some restrictions and liabilities as he/she was entitled to or subjected to immediately before the date of vesting. In view of the aforesaid provisions, according to Dr. Rath, the consolidation authorities have rightly recorded the land in favour of Bhagaban Behera and the submis¬sions raised by the petitioners are devoid of any merit and have been rightly not accepted. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Perused the materials available on record. The oral evidence coupled with the documentary evidence leads to an irresistible conclusion that the lands in question were part of the intermediary state and the ex intermediary had executed an “Amalanama Patta” in favour of Bhagaban Behera, the predecessor in interest of opposite party No.4 and had inducted him as a tenant. This fact gets further fortified by issuance of a ‘Rafa’ by the intermediary after vesting of the estate. Basing upon the ‘Rafa’ submitted by the intermediary after vesting of the estate, it appears, tenancy ledger was prepared indicating the name of Bhagaban Behera as a tenant in respect of the lands in question. Verification of the tenancy ledger further reveals that the name of Bhagaban Behera finds place at page No.390 against C.S. Plot No.302 for an area Ac.0.063 dec. Law is well settled that tenancy ledger is prepared by the responsible authorities of the State and the State is the custodian of the said document. Thus, the question of any manipulation in the tenancy ledger cannot be ac¬cepted on its face value unless of course it is established by cogent evidence in a competent Court. The said fact is lacking in the present case. That apart, the opposite parties are villagers. Thus, the question of any manipulation in the tenancy ledger cannot be ac¬cepted on its face value unless of course it is established by cogent evidence in a competent Court. The said fact is lacking in the present case. That apart, the opposite parties are villagers. They failed to establish before the consolidation authorities that they were in possession of the land and/or any portion of the same was used for any communal purpose. 8. Law is well settled that this Court while exercising the power in a certiorari proceeding does not sit in appeal against the order passed by the authorities below. An order can be interfered with, only if this Court finds that the conclusions arrived at are contrary to the materials available and/or has resulted in miscarriage of justice. In the case in hand, the authorities have discussed the evidence both oral and documentary in extenso and have given reasons in arriving at their conclu¬sions. Such reasons are in consonance with the evidence and do not appear to be unreasonable or shocking to commonsense. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.