JUDGMENT SANJU PANDA, J. In this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 20.1.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jharsuguda in R.F.A. No. 20 of 2009 rejecting the prayer to stay the appeal till disposal of Nazul Case No. 229 of 2009 pending before the Tahasildar, Jharsuguda. 2. The facts leading to the present case are as follows : The petitioner being in possession of the disputed land appertaining to Khata No. 946, Plot No. 91, measuring an area Ac. 0.010 decimals, Kisam-Gharbari in Mouza-Mangal Bazar, Jharsuguda filed application before the Tahasildar, Jharsuguda for settlement of the land under the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act (for short "the OGLS Act"), as the land is nazul land and he is in occupation over the same since 1978. The said application was registered as Nazul Case No. 229 of 2009. The application was filed in view of the amendment made in the OGLS Act, 2009 and the subsequent amendment thereof, as the petitioner is in possession of the land for more than the statutory period. In the said application, 'he has specifically stated that the land was originally possessed by Khoja Shia Isna Ashari Jamat, which is a private religious institution. He has inducted the petitioner as tenant in the year 1995. The aforesaid institution through it's Secretary Anwar Ali Lodha requested the tenants to purchase their respective occupied land. The petitioner agreed to such proposal and the price was settled at Rs. 75,000/-. But as the record-of-right of the land was not prepared .in the name of the institution and the institution was in urgent need of money therefore, a deed of agreement to sell was executed by the Secretary at Rs. 75,000/- and possession of the petitioner was confirmed. In the said agreement, it was stipulated that regular sale deed will be executed by the institution after preparation of Record-of-right. 3. Similarly, the opposite party, who is in possession of another portion of tenanted area, filed an application for settlement of the land, which was registered as Nazul Case No. 257 of 2009. Though the application of the opposite party was subsequent to the petitioner, however, her application was allowed by the Tahasildar and confirmed by the Sub-Collector without hearing the petitioner. Though the application of the opposite party was subsequent to the petitioner, however, her application was allowed by the Tahasildar and confirmed by the Sub-Collector without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner knowing the said fact has filed Nazul Appeal No. 10 of 2012 before the Sub-Collector, Jharsuguda under Section 7 of the OGLS Act challenging the aforesaid settlement in favour of opposite party. The said appeal is still pending. The petitioner has a very fair chance of success in the said appeal as the land is a nazul land and he is in possession of the same for more than the statutory period. Accordingly, he has filed an application in R.F.A. No. 20 of 2001 to stay the appeal till disposal of the Nazul Appeal No. 10 of 2012 and Nazul Case No. 229 of 2009. 4. The petitioner filed R.F.A. No. 20 of 2009 challenging the judgment and decree passed in C.S. No. 15 of 2008. The opposite party has filed the said Civil Suit for eviction. She has pleaded in the said suit that she purchased the property in the year 2006 by virtue of registered sale deed from one Khoja Shia Isna Ashari Jamat. Consequent upon purchase of the property by Registered Sale Deed, she being the landlord, filed the suit for eviction of the petitioner describing him as tenant. She further pleaded that her vendor is a private religious institution and the suit premises was purchased by the said institution from original owner Ahmed Hussain and Smt. Maleka Bai by registered sale deed in the year 1971 along with lease hold interest. Prior to purchase, she along with her husband with one Ganga Bishnu Sriwas were inducted as a tenant by the original owner. After purchase of the land by the institution they continue as tenant under the said institution. The said institution sold the land along with house by registered sale deed on 30.8.2006. Thereafter, the plaintiff is occupying the same and defendant is a tenant under the management of the said institution. As such, he became a tenant under the plaintiff after the same was purchased by her. The plaintiff has informed the defendant about the transaction and requested to pay rent to the plaintiff to which defendant agreed but did not pay the monthly rent despite the said promise/cost. As such, he became a tenant under the plaintiff after the same was purchased by her. The plaintiff has informed the defendant about the transaction and requested to pay rent to the plaintiff to which defendant agreed but did not pay the monthly rent despite the said promise/cost. After giving notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the plaintiff filed the suit for eviction. 5. The present petitioner is defendant in the said suit. He has appeared and filed his written statement taking a stand that by virtue of an agreement and subsequent Ekranama dated 1.6.1995 and 11.12.1998 respectively the institution has agreed to sell the suit property to him and he is possessing the same as such. There is no relationship between the landlord and tenant between Khoja Shia Isna Ashari Jamat and the defendant, as the lease was determined since 31.5.1995. The defendant was possessing the suit land after the said agreement, which is a contract for sale, executed by the Management of the religious institution in favour of the defendant to the full knowledge of the plaintiff and in spite of such knowledge, a fraudulent document was obtained by the plaintiff. The defendant has pleaded that having been ready to perform his part of contract and to pay the balance amount, he is entitled to the protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief and her suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. However, the Court below without considering the respective plea of the parties on its proper perspective decreed the suit for eviction. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the R.F.A. was filed, which is pending for disposal. During pendency of the civil suit and appeal, since the OGLS Act is being amended and a further right accrued in favour of the defendant, the petitioner applied for settlement of the land, which is admittedly a Nazul land. 7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the land is belonging to Government land and it was described as Nazul land. Though petitioner's application was prior to the application filed by the opposite party, however, the authority allowed the application of the opposite party for which Nazul Appeal No. 10 of 2012 was pending where the petitioner has a fair chance to succeed. Though petitioner's application was prior to the application filed by the opposite party, however, the authority allowed the application of the opposite party for which Nazul Appeal No. 10 of 2012 was pending where the petitioner has a fair chance to succeed. Therefore, a direction may be given to the said authority to dispose of Nazul Case No. 10 of 2012 as early as possible. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite party, however, vehemently opposed to the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the suit was filed for eviction and the opposite party plaintiff has also got the decree and during pendency of the appeal, the said decree holder is not able to enjoy the fruit of the decree. Therefore, direction may be issued to dispose of R.F.A. as early as possible. 9. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and after going through the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the petitioner has raised a prima facie case and also he has taken a stand to protect his interest in view of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, as he is in possession of the land. The opposite party is advancing a claim of derivative title, which is yet to be determined in R.F.A. No. 20 of 2009. When technicality and administration of justice pitted against each other, the Court has to see justice to be done and a party cannot be refused just relief merely because of technicalities. 10. In view of the above and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directs the Sub-Collector, Jharsuguda to dispose of Nazul Appeal No. 10 of 2012 by the end of May, 2014. After disposal of the said appeal, R.F.A. No. 20 of 2009 pending in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Jharsuguda shall be heard and disposed of on its own merit. Accordingly, the CMP is disposed of. CMP disposed of.