JUDGMENT S. PANDA, J. : In W.P.(C) (No.14019 of 2012 petitioners have prayed to quash the order dated 1.6.2012 passed by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Odisha, Cuttack in R.P. Case No.143 of 2009 under Annexure-15. In W.P.(C) No.22686 of 2012 petitioner has prayed to quash the order dated 26.9.2011 passed by the Collector, Mayurbhanj in O.G.L.S. Appeal No.1 of 2009 under Annexure-13 so also the order dated 1.6.2012 passed by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Odisha, Cuttack in R.P. Case No.143 of 2009 under Annexure-15. The Commissioner has directed to correct the R.O.R. and to record the name of opposite party No.1-Chief District Veterinary Officer, Mayurbhanj deleting the name of the petitioners. In W.P.(C) No.22687 of 2012 petitioner has prayed to quash the order dated 26.9.2011 passed by the Collector, Mayurbhanj in O.G.L.S. Appeal No.1 of 2009 under Annexure-13 so also the order dated 1.6.2012 passed by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Odisha, Cuttack in R.P. Case No.143 of 2009 under Annexure-15. In W.P.(C) No.12000 of 2012 petitioners have prayed to quash the order dated 26.9.2011 passed by the Collector, Mayurbhanj in O.G.L.S. Appeal No.1 of 2009 under Annexure-13 so also the confirming order dated 1.6.2012 passed by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Odisha, Cuttack in O.G.L.S. Revision No.3 of 2011 under Annexure-14. In W.P.(C) No.22677 of 2012 petitioner has prayed to quash the order dated 26.9.2011 passed by the Collector, Mayurbhanj in O.G.L.S. Appeal No.1 of 2009 under Annexures-13 so also the confirming the order dated 1.6.2012 passed by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Odisha, Cuttack in O.G.L.S. Revision No.3 of 2011 under Annexure-14. In W.P.(C) No.22678 of 2012 petitioner has prayed to quash the order dated 26.9.2011 passed by the Collector, Mayurbhanj in O.G.L.S. Appeal No.1 of 2009 under Annexure-13 so also the confirming order dated 1.6.2012 passed by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Odisha, Cuttack in O.G.L.S. Revision No.3 of 2011 under Annexure-14. In W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2012 petitioner has prayed to quash the order dated 26.9.2011 passed by the Collector, Mayurbhanj in O.G.L.S. Appeal No.1 of 2009 under Annexure-13 so also the confirming order dated 1.6.2012 by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Odisha, Cuttack in O.G.L.S. Revision No.3 of 2011 under Annexure-14. In W.P.(C) No.22679 of 2012 petitioner has prayed to quash the order dated 26.9.2011 passed by the Collector, Mayurbhanj in O.G.L.S. Appeal No.1 of 2009 under Annexure-13 so also the confirming order dated 1.6.2012 by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Odisha, Cuttack in O.G.L.S. Revision No.3 of 2011 under Annexure-14. The Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Odisha, Cuttack has set aside the allotment made in favour of the petitioners and directed the Tahasildar, Baripada to select a separate patch of land for allotment. Since common question of law and facts involved in all these writ petitions, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2.The facts as narrated in the writ petitions are as follows : The petitioners being the ex-jawans were eligible to get agricultural land pursuant to Notification dated 16.4.1998 issued by the Revenue Department, Government of Odisha. The said notification stipulates that the Tahasildar can grant one standard acre of agricultural land to the ex-jawan under the Government Grants Act, 1896. The Rajya Sainik Board issued bonafide certificate in favour of the petitioners and also recommended their case to get land as per the notification. Taking into consideration the applications filed by the petitioners, the opposite party No.4-Tahasildar, Baripada has allotted the land at village Tadkisole from part of the Plot No.338 under Khata No.68 an area ac.4.30 decimals each in their favour and send the record to Sub-Collector, Baripada for approval. The Sub-Collector approved the said, lease granted by the Tahasildar, Baripada as per Rule 5(6) of O.G.L.S. Rules, 1983, subject to the condition that the land so settled shall not be utilized for any other purpose except agriculture and the land cannot be transferred/alienated without prior permission of the competent authority, and returned the record to the Tahasildar, Baripada for taking follow up action by its order dated 30th January, 2008 with a further condition that if any irregularities/deviation of any condition of this lease is noticed/comes to the notice of the Tahasildar, he can take steps for resumption of the land observing due procedure. After receiving the said order of the Sub-Collector, Baripada, the opposite party No.4 took up the follow up action mutating the land in the name of respective persons vide order dated 6.9.2008 and accordingly R.O.R. was corrected in their favour. After receiving the said order of the Sub-Collector, Baripada, the opposite party No.4 took up the follow up action mutating the land in the name of respective persons vide order dated 6.9.2008 and accordingly R.O.R. was corrected in their favour. 3.The opposite party No.1 has filed O.G.L.S. Appeal No.1 of 2009 before the Collector, Mayurbhanj challenging the settlement after it came to the knowledge regarding settlement of land by impleading all the ex-jawans, in whose favour land was so settled pursuant to Notification dated 16.4.1998. The appellant-opposite party No1 has taken a specific stand in the appeal that the land in question was allotted to his department for the purpose of establishment of Livestock Breeding and Dairy Farm in the year 1950. The total extent of land allotted to the appellant-opposite party No.1 department is Ac.142.78 decimals and in this regard the appellant produced the copy of letter No.10175 dated 14.8.1950 and letter No.13402 dated 9.10.1950 issued by Additional District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj addressing the appellant-opposite party No.1 and also the copy of Sabik R.O.R. The appellant-opposite party No.1 has also taken a stand that from the date of allotment the opposite party No.1- Department was in possession of the land but during Hal Settlement Operation the land in question has been inadvertently recorded in the name of the State Government without any field verification. Accordingly, the Tahasildar and the Sub-Collector, Baripada allotted a portion of the said land measuring Ac.16.90 decimals in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 4 without conducting any spot verification and without verifying the records. The appellant-opposite party No.1 also filed R.P. Case No.143 of 2009 before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Odisha, Cuttack to correct the R.O.R. The same was allowed on the ground that as the land was allotted to appellant-opposite party No.1 in the year 1950 and from the date of allotment, appellant-opposite party No.1 is in possession of the said land, the said allotment cannot be cancelled at any point of time. Opposite party No.2-Collector, Mayurbhanj called for all the records and allowed the appeal filed by opposite party No.1 and set aside the lease granted by opposite party No.4 in favour of the present petitioners by its order dated 26.9.2011 and also directed the Tahasildar, Baripada to select the another suitable patch of land for the present petitioners as per the provisions of O.G.L.S. Act and Rules. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed O.G.L.S. Revision before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Odisha, Cuttack which was also disposed of on 1st June, 2012. The revisional Court confirmed the order of the appellate authority and directed the Tahasildar to take steps for correction of the R.O.R. of the disputed land in question in favour of opposite party No.1 after verifying actual area of possession and also take steps to lease out another patch of land in favour of the petitioners. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after allotment of the land, the petitioners have invested huge amount of money to develop the land. Opposite party No.1 has not taken any effective step to mutate the land in its favour after allotment of the land in its favour in the year 1950, therefore the lease granted by opposite party No.4 in favour of the petitioners herein shall be confirmed by setting aside the impugned orders passed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority in the O.G.L.S. Revision and the direction issued by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Odisha, Cuttack in R.P. case for correction of the R.O.R. may be quashed. 5.Learned Addl.Government Advocate, supporting the impugned orders passed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority, submitted that by virtue of the impugned orders, the Tahasildar, Baripada has been directed to allot another patch of land to the present petitioners and to record the name of present opposite party No.1 in the R.O.R. as the opposite party No.1 is in possession of the land since 1950 after due allotment in its favour. Learned Addl.Government Advocate, producing the working khatian of mouza Tadkisole submitted that the Tahasildar has not taken note of the said khatian while allotting the land in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned orders need not be interfered with since order has been passed for allotment of another patch of land in favour of the petitioners. 6.Considering the rival submission of the parties and after going through the relevant records, it appears that the land in question, which was allotted to the present petitioners, was part of the Plot No.338 under Khata No.68. 6.Considering the rival submission of the parties and after going through the relevant records, it appears that the land in question, which was allotted to the present petitioners, was part of the Plot No.338 under Khata No.68. It is a fact that the said land was allotted to opposite party No.1-Department and the same was transferred in its favour on 14th August, 1950 as reveals from the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj. It appears that an area of Ac.142.78 decimals of land from mouza Swarupvilla and Tadkisole (98.57 + 44.21) was transferred in favour of opposite party No.1. The Additional District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj has also forwarded a copy of the said order to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar for information and directed for correction of the R.O.R. Thereafter during pendency of these present cases, the R.O.R. was corrected in February, 2009 and opposite party No.1’s name was recorded in the R.O.R. and accordingly opposite party No.1-Department already established dairy farm over the said land and utilized the remaining portion thereof for fodder cultivation. Further, since the land allotted in favour of opposite party No.1 way back in the year 1950 has not been cancelled at any point of time and the allotment order issued in favour of the petitioners is conditional one, the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority while settling aside the allotment order has rightly directed the opposite party No.4 to select a separate patch of land to be allotted in favour of the present petitioners. 7.In view of the aforesaid fact situation, we are of the view that there is no error apparent on the face of the record and therefore we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders. However, since there is a direction of the revisional authority to allot separate patch of land in favour of the petitioners, the same shall be complied with within a period of three months from today. However, since there is a direction of the revisional authority to allot separate patch of land in favour of the petitioners, the same shall be complied with within a period of three months from today. Even though it was very much within the knowledge of the petitioners that as per the direction of the revisional authority the R.O.R. has been corrected in the year 2009 recording the name of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 is in possession of the said land, during pendency of the dispute the petitioners have purportedly invested certain money to develop the land allotted in their favour, therefore, we are not inclined to grant any relief in this regard. Accordingly all the writ petitions are dismissed without any costs. Dr. B.R. SARANGI, J.I agree. Petitions dismissed.