JUDGMENT M. M. DAS, J. The petitioner in the present writ petition has sought for quashing the orders passed by the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Odisha in R.C. No. 181 of 2004 by which the Commissioner confirmed the order dated 18.12.2000 passed in Appeal Case No. 45 of 2000 by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Jajpur dismissing the revision. 2. From the facts of the case, it is revealed that Nidhi Panda, the ancestor of the petitioner was the owner in possession of a total area of Ac.0. 30 decimals of land including land appertaining to plot No. 308/1138, area Ac.0. 03 decimals, plot no. 306, area Ac. 0. 01 decimal and plot no. 309, area Ac. 0.01 decimal, which are homestead lands under khata no. 338 of village Sudhagobinda, as per the maintenance Record of Right published in the year 1910-1911. The petitioner claims that he has succeeded to the said property and possesses the said land totalling to Ac. 0. 30 decimals till date. In the sabik settlement R.O.R. published in the year 1928, the said area measuring Ac.0.30 decimals was reduced to Ac. 0. 26 decimals corresponding to sabik plot No. 515, area Ac. 0.13 decimals and plot no. 506, area Ac. 0.13 decimals under sabik khata No. 249, which was recorded in the name of the father of the petitioner. The petitioner claims to be possessing Ac. 0.30 decimals existing in the field. 3. Since the status of the land was ‘Bahel’ in nature, after operation of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, the petitioner made an application under sections 6 and 7 of the said Act before the O.E.A. Collector, Jajpur registered as O.E.A. Case No. 22782 of 1963. The O.E.A. Collector in the said case, however, settled Ac. 0. 26 decimals of land in the name of the petitioner. For the rest Ac.0.04 decimals of land, the petitioner made a further application for settlement of the same in his name before the O.E.A. Collector, but the O.E.A. Collector rejected the prayer for which the petitioner moved the Member, Board of Revenue under section 38 (B) of the O.E.A. Act to record the rest Ac.0. 04 decimals of land in his favour in O.E.A. Revision Case No. 67 of 1987. The Member, Board of Revenue after hearing, rejected the prayer of the petitioner. 04 decimals of land in his favour in O.E.A. Revision Case No. 67 of 1987. The Member, Board of Revenue after hearing, rejected the prayer of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred O.J.C. No. 135 of 1987 before this Court which was disposed of by order dated 28.7.1987 remitting the matter back to the Member, Board of Revenue with a direction to rehear the petitioner under section 38(B) of the O.E.A. Act and pass appropriate order as per law. After the matter was remitted back, the Member, Board of Revenue heard the matter afresh and passed the final order on 19.4.1988 directing the Tahasildar-cum-O.E.A. Collector, Jajpur to make spot enquiry, get the plot identified , measure the same and if the area is found to be actually Ac.0.30 decimals, to take steps to correct the record and map accordingly. The Tahasildar-cum-O.E.A. Collector, Jajpur after receipt of the said order on 11.6.1988 demarcated the suit land in presence of the villagers and found that the petitioner is in possession of Ac. 0. 30 decimals of land instead of Ac. 0. 26 decimals of land, and, accordingly, settled the balance Ac. 0. 04 decimals of land in favour of the petitioner by his order dated 23.7.1988. The opp. party no. 2 being aggrieved by the said order preferred an appeal being Lease Appeal No. 7 of 1988 before the Sub-Collector, Jajpur, who by his order dated 19.4.1994 rejected the appeal upholding the order of the Tahasildar-cum-O.E.A. Collector. The opp. party no.2 thereafter challenged the said order by filing O.E.A. Revision Case No. 4 of 1994 before the A.D.M., Jajpur. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said revision was not maintainable before the A.D.M., who had absolutely no jurisdiction to entertain the same. But the A.D.M. erroneously allowed the revision vide order dated 3.11.1998. The petitioner again preferred O.E.A. Revision Case No. 2 of 1999 before the Member, Board of Revenue, who rejected the case of the petitioner. When the opp. party no. 2 allegedly interfered with the possession of the petitioner, in the interregnum, the petitioner filed T.S. No. 107 of 1986 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jajpur. The said Title Suit abated under section 4 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 as the consolidation operation commenced in the area. party no. 2 allegedly interfered with the possession of the petitioner, in the interregnum, the petitioner filed T.S. No. 107 of 1986 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jajpur. The said Title Suit abated under section 4 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 as the consolidation operation commenced in the area. The petitioner challenged the order of the Member, Board of Revenue in O.J.C. No. 10636 of 2001. This Court taking note of all the previous facts and long run litigation between the parties though did not interfere with the order of Member, Board of Revenue, observed that the parties may settle their dispute in the consolidation forum. During the consolidation operation, the petitioner filed Objection Case No. 3378/329 of 1993 before the Consolidation Officer, Jajpur to enhance the area from Ac. 0. 26 decimals to Ac. 0.30 decimals. In the said consolidation proceeding, the Amin enquired about the suit plot, measured the land and found that the petitioner is actually in possession of Ac. 0. 30 decimals of land. Thereafter, the Consolidation Officer passed an order enhancing the area of Hal Plot No. 836/2736 to Ac. 0.15 decimals and 836/2764 to Ac. 0.15 decimals by his order dated 23.5.2000. The opp. party no. 2 challenged the said order by filing an Appeal bearing No. 45 of 2000 before the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Jajpur who set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 18.12.2000. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision under section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 before the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, registered as R.C. No. 181 of 2004 claiming recording of the balance Ac. 0. 04 decimals of land in his favour and to set aside the order passed in the appeal. The Commissioner, however, dismissed the said revision. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 6. A perusal of the documents annexed to the writ petition shows that after the matter was remitted back to the O.E.A. Collector-cum-Tahasildar and actual measurement was done, it was found that the petitioner is in possession of Ac. 0.30 decimals of land. It is further revealed that recording Ac. 0. 30 decimals of land in favour of the petitioner does not affect the opp. party no. 0.30 decimals of land. It is further revealed that recording Ac. 0. 30 decimals of land in favour of the petitioner does not affect the opp. party no. 2 in any manner as the land of the opp. party no.2 remains in tact as Ac. 0.89 decimals. The Amin, who measured the land in the field, has reported that the petitioner is in possession of Ac. 0.30 decimals of land as recorded in 1911 Maintenance Register under Annexure-1. These aspects have not been dealt with by the revenue authorities as well as by the appellate3 and revisional authorities under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. 7. This Court, therefore, finds force in the argument of Shri P.K. Patnaik, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the petitioner as well as from the submissions of Mr. Parija, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opp. party no. 2, who submits that recording of Ac. 0.30 decimals of land in the name of the petitioner will not affect the interest of the opp. party no. 2 in any manner. 8. This Court, therefore, sets aside the order dated 19.8.2011 passed in R.C. No. 181 of 2004 by the Commissioner under Annexure-7 as well as the appellate order against which the said revision was filed and confirms the order of the Consolidation Officer, Jajpur passed in Objection Case No. 3378/329 of 1993 on 25.3.2000. The records be corrected accordingly. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, but in the circumstances, without cost.