JUDGMENT S. PANDA, J. - The petitioner has filed this writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 23.8.2005 passed by the Land Reforms Commissioner, Cuttack in OLR Revision No.24 of 2002 confirming the order dated 30.4.1995 passed by the Tahsildar, Sambalpur in OLR Misc. Case No.1 of 1995. 2. The facts leading to the present, case are as follows: The disputed lands measuring a total of Ac.1.570 decimals situated in Sambalpur Town Unit No.1 were originally recorded in the name of Padma Lochan Panda, opposite party No.4, as per Hamid R.O.R. He sold the said land to Puma Ch. Thakur, Janmanjaya Thakur and Jogendra Thakur. Those vendees alienated the property in favour of the present petitioner by registered sale deed No.873 dated 7.4.1982. After purchasing the land, the petitioner filed Mutation Case No.775 of 1984 before the Tahasildar to mutate the land in his name which was allowed and a separate Khata No.351/9 was opened. The claim of the petitioner is that he was/is in possession of the land from the date of his purchase. Puma Chandra Thakur one of the vendees of village Dhanupali earlier had filed OLR Case No.68 of 1974 under Section 36-A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (in short, "the Act") before the Addl. Tahasildar, Sambalpur to declare him as raiyat for an area of Ac.1.08 decimals of land appertaining to Hamid Settlement Khata No.26/1. He was declared as raiyat by the Revenue Officer on 19.6.1975 as the land was non-resumable. Yudhistira Churia being aggrieved by the said order dated 19.6.1975 filed OLR Appeal No.178 of 1978 on 15.6.1969 before the Sub-Divisional Officer basing on the agreement to sell the land. Thereafter registered sale deed No.1046 dated 11.12.1971 was executed and he is in possession of the said disputed land since the date of the purchase. His appeal was allowed on 25.6.1982. Puma Chandra Thakur being aggrieved by the appellate order filed OLR Revision No.6 of 1982 before the Addl. District Magistrate (LR), Sambalpur who confirmed the appellate order and dismissed the revision on 31.12.1982. Challenging the order of the revisional authority, he filed OJC No.2056 of 1983 before this Court. This Court quashed the order passed by the revisional authority and remitted the case to the Tahasildar-cum-Revenue Officer for fresh disposal after conducting inquiry and giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. Challenging the order of the revisional authority, he filed OJC No.2056 of 1983 before this Court. This Court quashed the order passed by the revisional authority and remitted the case to the Tahasildar-cum-Revenue Officer for fresh disposal after conducting inquiry and giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. This Court also fixed 14.5.1990 for appearance of the parties before the Revenue Officer. After disposal of the writ petition, Yudhistra Churia died. He had executed a Willnama in favour of Sarija Majhi, the present opposite party No.3. She appeared before the Revenue Officer as per the direction of this Court. The Revenue Officer disposed of the said proceeding as per the direction of this Court dated 17.4.1990 as Puma Chandra Thakur was neither present before him nor did nobody appear on his behalf to proceed with the claim under Section 36-A of the Act. As such, the Revenue Officer on 18.6.1990 held that the proceeding stood closed. Therefore, the claim of Purna Chandra Thakur under Section 36-A of the Act no more did exist. Opposite party No.3 by virtue of the Willnama from Yudhistira Churia is continuing in possession of the land.' After closure of the proceeding by the Revenue Officer under Section 36-A of the Act, opposite party No.3 filed Misc. Case No.1 of 1995 to mutate the land in her name by deleting the name of the present petitioner Sri Thakur Kesharsingh Gosein from Khata No.351/9 which was allowed in her favour on 30.4.1995. The petitioner was not a party to the said proceeding. After knowing the said fact, the present petitioner filed OLR Revision No.24 of 2002 before the Land Reforms Commissioner, Cuttack under Section 59(2) of the Act, seven years after the land record was corrected, on the ground that the Revenue Officer without hearing afresh OLR Case, No.68 of 1974 filed under Section 36-A of the Act, closed the proceeding and allowed Misc. Case No.1 of 1995 without any notice to the present petitioner. The Revisional Authority without referring the matter to the Member, Board of Revenue rejected the said application which is impugned in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that no notice was issued to the petitioner in OLR Case No.68 of 1974 or Misc. Case No.1 of 1995. Since the principle of natural justice has not been complied with, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that no notice was issued to the petitioner in OLR Case No.68 of 1974 or Misc. Case No.1 of 1995. Since the principle of natural justice has not been complied with, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties submitted that the petitioner was not a party in OJC No.2056 of 1983. Said writ petition was filed by one Purna Chandra Thakur and after remand by this Court, the Revenue Officer issued notice to him and the notice was made sufficient as he refused to receive the said notice. The notice was issued to Puma Chandra Thakur in both ways. The same was returned with endorsement "refused". Therefore, since the petitioner was neither a party in OJC No.2056 of 1983 nor did he file any application under Section 36-A of the Act, the question of issuance of notice to him does not arise. The petitioner after a long gap of twelve years from the date of disposal of OJC N6.2056 of 1983, filed an application in the year 2002 before the Revisional Authority to refer the matter to the Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack i.e. seven years after the land was mutated in the name of the opposite parties. As the claim of the petitioner was barred by limitation, the Revenue Authorities rightly rejected his application without referring the matter to the Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack. Therefore, interference of this Court is not warranted. 5. This Court considered the rival submissions of the parties and went through the record. It is crystal clear that Puma Chandra Thakur was an applicant claiming the property as a tenant and his claim was to declare him as a tenant under Section 36-A of the Act. Even though notice was duly served on him, he was not interested in the property and nobody on his behalf prosecuted the proceeding. Therefore, the Revenue Officer rightly closed the proceeding. Opposite party No.3 throughout contested the proceeding as her predecessor-in-interest purchased the property through registered sale deed dated 11.12.1971 and was/is, in possession of the property since the date of the purchase. Accordingly, the name of the opposite party No.3 was mutated in the year 1995 in Misc. Case No.1 of 1995. The present petitioner claimed that he purchased the property from Purna Ch. Accordingly, the name of the opposite party No.3 was mutated in the year 1995 in Misc. Case No.1 of 1995. The present petitioner claimed that he purchased the property from Purna Ch. Thakur, Janmanjaya Thakur and Jogendra Thakur on 7.4.1982. However, his vendors (Purna Ch. Thakur) right over the disputed property has not yet been declared. Since the vendor's right has not been settled by the competent authorities; the petitioner cannot step into their shoes and say that he was a lis pendens purchaser. He had also not pursued the proceeding on behalf of the vendors. 6. The petitioner initiated a proceeding to record his name twelve years after the closure of the proceeding under Section 36-A of the Act and seven years after the land was mutated in the name of opposite party No.3. The vendor cannot transfer a title/right better than what he had over the land. The application of the petitioner's vendor under Section 36-A of the Act was dropped without determining his right of tenancy over the land. Therefore, the transfer made by him to the petitioner is non est in the eye of law as he never became tenant/owner of the land to transfer such right/title to the petitioner. Nothing on the records reveals that the vendors had disclosed about the pendency of the litigation while transferring the property to the purchaser as required under the Transfer of the Property Act. Therefore, since the petitioner's vendors had no right over the property, the petitioner cannot claim any right over the property through his vendors as a bona fide purchaser. It is open to the petitioner to sue against vendors for recovery of the consideration amount. 7. Since there is no error apparent on the face of the record, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.