ORDER Heard Mr. A. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. T. Nanda, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. Challenge in the present writ appeal has been made to an order dated 01.10.2012 passed in WP (C) No.16489 of 2008, whereby, the learned Single Judge came to dismiss the said writ petition on a finding that the Commissioner, Consolidation, Sambalpur had taken note of all the contentions raised before that Court and had rightly came to the conclusion that opposite party No.4 (respondent No.4 herein) had purchased the disputed property from the original owner earlier to the purchase made by the petitioner. Therefore, opposite party No.4 has right, title and interest over the said property and not finding any error in law or the fact in the proceeding, dismissed the writ petition having found the same to be devoid of any merit. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant contends that while it is a fact that respondent No.4 had, in fact, a registered sale deed in his favour and the said sale/purchase had occurred prior to the appellant's sale deed, yet he alleges certain defects in the sale deed and further, he claims that the possession of the land in question had never been taken by respondent No.4 pursuant to such sale deed. He further contends that respondent No.4 had not taken any steps to mutate the land in question in his favour after the purchase. He further claims that the vendor of the present appellant had sold a small portion of the said land to the appellant and the appellant remains in possession of the same. Mr. Nanda, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4, on the other hand, vehemently disputes the aforesaid contentions and submits that the consolidation authority had carried out an enquiry and found respondent No.4 to be in possession of the said land. Apart from the above, he asserts that once the appellant admits that the sale deed filed by the respondent No.4 had been registered prior to the sale deed executed in his favour, he cannot claim any right title and interest over the land in question, in view of the fact that his vendor did not possess the right, title and interest of the property in question at the time of their sale. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusing the impugned order as well as Annexure–2 to the writ application, we are of the considered view that no error whatsoever exits in the impugned order and accordingly, we find no merit in the present appeal since it is well settled that the later sale deed cannot in any manner pass any right, title and interest to a subsequent purchaser since the vendor himself has no right in law for effecting a second sale of any property that has already been sold by way of an registered sale deed earlier. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. The dismissal of the writ appeal will not stand on the way of any relief that the appellant may seek both in civil and criminal proceedings, against his vendor, if so advised. Appeal dismissed.