JUDGMENT SANJU PANDA, J. -In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack-opposite party No.1 in O.S.S. Case No.1422 of 2003 disposed of on 24.10.2009 in an application under 32 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 read with Para-111 of Mutation Manual (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). 2. The facts leading to the present writ petition are as follows: The disputed land in question is appertaining to Mutation Khata No.835/622, Plot No.812/2580, Ac.0.074 decimals and Plot No.805/2579 Ac.0.126 decimals, total Ac.0.200 decimals in Mouza-Balisahi, P.S.-Salipur, District Cuttack. One Maheswar Singh Jena Samanta was the recorded owner of the said land along with other properties measuring total area of Ac.0.417 decimals in Sabik Khata No.481, Plot No.610, Ac.0.131 decimals and Plot No.616, Ac.0.286 decimals in Mouza-Balisahi as per the R.O.R. published in the year 1970. To meet his legal necessity, he has entered into an agreement with Dinabandhu Singh of Chandradeipur for sale of the said land for a consideration of Rs.5,000/- and while executing the agreement he received Rs.3,000/- as part payment and balance Rs.2,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of sale of the land and in pursuance of the said agreement, the possession of the said land was handed over to Dinabandhu Singh. While Dinabandhu Singh was continuing in possession, he filed Title Suit No.80 of 1992 for specific performance of contract before the learned Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court Cuttack. The said suit was heard ex parte and disposed of by judgment dated 3.10.1985 and decree dated 11.10.1985. In the said suit, the Civil Court has directed the defendant to receive the balance consideration amount from the plaintiff and register the sale deed in his favour in respect of the suit land within two months failing which the plaintiff is to deposit the said amount of Rs.2,000/- in Court and the Court will execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant. Since the defendant has failed to execute the sale deed, as directed by the Court, the plaintiff tiled an application for getting the sale deed registered by process of the Court and deposited the balance amount before the Court. Since the defendant has failed to execute the sale deed, as directed by the Court, the plaintiff tiled an application for getting the sale deed registered by process of the Court and deposited the balance amount before the Court. While the process of execution of the document was going on, the said Maheswar Singh Jena Samanta and his wife died one after the other leaving one daughter, namely, Smt. Shanti Devi and two sons, namely, Amar Singh Jenamani Deo and Adhar Singh Chhotray, who were duly substituted and notices were issued to then in the execution proceeding. They also failed to appear in Court in spite of notice. The Court below executed the sale deed on their behalf, which was duly registered bearing Registered Sale Deed No.243 dated 15.1.1993 and the purchaser was in possession of the property from the date of execution of the agreement for sale in respect of the disputed property. After execution of the sale deed, the possession was not delivered again to the decree holder. Thereafter, the purchaser Dinabandhu Singh filed Mutation Case No.901 of 1993 and the same was dropped on 9.1.1995 due to non-prosecution. Accordingly, another Mutation Case bearing Mutation Case No.253 of 1999 was filed by Dinabandhu Singh which was allowed on 18.8.2000, as Dinabandhu Singh has the title and possession over the property. During pendency of Mutation Case No.253 of 1999, Dinabandhu Singh died leaving behind his widow, namely, Sulochana Singh and two sons, namely, Niranjan Singh and Surendranath Singh and also one daughter, namely, Bidulata Singh @ Barik. Sulochana Singh in her turn sold the disputed land by Registered Sale Deed No.762 dated 14.2.2001 to one Amita Ray, wife of late Asim Kumar Ray with the consent of her sons and daughter. After purchasing the land, Amita Ray filed Mutation Case No.1118 of 2001 which was allowed on 30.6.2001 and the land was recorded in her name in a separate khata bearing No.835/353 and record of right was issued in her favour vide Annexure-1. While in possession of the property, Amita Ray sold the property by Registered Sale Deed No.5762 dated 10.11.2004 in favour of the present petitioner, namely, Basanti Sahoo and delivered possession to her. While in possession of the property, Amita Ray sold the property by Registered Sale Deed No.5762 dated 10.11.2004 in favour of the present petitioner, namely, Basanti Sahoo and delivered possession to her. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed Mutation Case No.1092 of 2005 which was allowed on 8.5.2005 and record of right was issued in favour of the petitioner, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. While the matter stood thus, a notice was affixed over the disputed land in the 2nd week of October, 2009 in O.S.S. Case No.1422 of 2003. On getting the said information from the labourers, the petitioner made enquiry about the case and ascertained that the present opposite party No.2, the Secretary, Danpur Jute Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd., Jobra, Cuttack challenging the order of Mutation Officer in Mutation Case No.253 of 1999 allowing mutation by order dated 18.8.2000 filed Mutation Appeal No.146 of 2000 before the Sub-Collector (Sadar), Cuttack. The opposite party No.2 had taken a stand in the Mutation Appeal that the original owner, namely, Maheswar Singh Jena Samanta by Registered Sale Deed No.9685 dated 27.8.1976 sold the land to the Society and the Society after purchase of the said land had recorded it's name during consolidation operation. The Sub-Collector after hearing both the parties dismissed the Mutation Appeal No.146 of 2000 filed by opposite party No.2 on 10.1.2001. Thereafter, the opposite party No.2 being aggrieved by the order passed by the Sub-Collector in the Mutation Appeal filed O.S.S. Case No.1422 of 2003. Therefore, the present petitioner filed an application in the said O.S.S. case to intervene in the matter, as she was in possession of the disputed land and a notice was affixed on the said land. However, her application was rejected by opposite party No.1 on 24.10.2009 and the case was adjourned to 31.10.2009 for orders. Therefore, the present petitioner filed an application in the said O.S.S. case to intervene in the matter, as she was in possession of the disputed land and a notice was affixed on the said land. However, her application was rejected by opposite party No.1 on 24.10.2009 and the case was adjourned to 31.10.2009 for orders. Similarly, one Ramesh Chandra Sahoo filed another petition on the ground that he has also purchased a portion of the land covered in the sale deed 15.1.1993 from the same vendor and prayed for impleading him as a party in the proceeding and his application was also rejected on the ground that the intervenors have failed to explain as to why they have not taken any step for correction of the Consolidation R.O.R. The opposite party No.1 though posted the matter to 31.10.2009 after rejecting the applications for intervention on 24.10.2009, he had passed the order and directed the Tahasildar to reverse all the correction of consolidation record of right and signed the order on the same day and the said order was pronounced on 31.10.2009 by his successor. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the observation made by opposite party No.1 in the impugned order that the decree passed by the Civil Court and the subsequent sale deed executed by the Court below are void documents, is not sustainable, as he has no jurisdiction to declare the Civil Court decree void. As such, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. He further submitted that the dispute between opposite party No.2 and the petitioner is regarding validity of their title and as such the Member, Board of Revenue has no jurisdiction to consider the same. Accordingly, the impugned order be set aside. 4. Learned Additional. Government Advocate has supported the impugned order and he has reiterated that the since the dispute is civil in nature, the parties may approach the competent Court for necessary relief. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order be set aside. 4. Learned Additional. Government Advocate has supported the impugned order and he has reiterated that the since the dispute is civil in nature, the parties may approach the competent Court for necessary relief. 5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order passed by the opposite party No.1, it appears that the opposite party No.1 has recorded the finding that the sale deed No.243 dated 15.1.1993 executed by the Civil Court is avoid document and no title was passed in favour of the vendee and earlier Mutation Case was dismissed for non-prosecution and therefore, the subsequent mutation case is barred by res judicata. 6. From the above finding, it appears that the Member, Board of Revenue has only exercised his jurisdiction under Section 32 of the Act. Under the said Act and Mutation Manual he has no jurisdiction to give such a finding, as he is not the appellate authority of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court. Since the said finding of opposite party No.1 is an error apparent on the face of record, this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashes the impugned order. Since the R.O.R. neither creates title nor extinguishes title, it is open to the parties to approach the appropriate authority to establish their respective entitlement over the property. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No cost. Petition allowed.