JUDGMENT : BISWANATH RATH, J. 1. In filing the writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 15.12.1998 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation and Settlement in R.C. Case No. 60/1990 under Annexure-1 to this petition. 2. Short background involved in the case is that the petitioner has a genealogy to establish that he being the adopted son of one late Annapurna, becomes the absolute owner of the property by way of inheritance through late Laxminarayan Sahoo. Being the adopted son the petitioner by virtue of a relinquishment deed by late Kunja the daughter of late Jasoda-first wife of late Banchhanidhi Sahoo, S/o Late Laxminarayan Sahoo, further claimed that late Kunja remained the absolute owner of the properties of late Laxminarayan Sahoo on the death of late Jasoda-the first wife, the mother of late Bagdevi-second wife dying issueless, late Satyabhama-third wife of late Banchhanidhi Sahoo, whose only son Gobinda also died in the year 1963 issueless. 3. To support his claim, the petitioner also submitted that late Laxminarayan Sahoo had two sons namely late Banka Sahoo and late Banchhanidhi Sahoo. Late Banka Sahoo died issueless. Late Annapurna adopted the petitioner in the year 1963. 4. From the pleadings brought through the respective parties, it appears that involving the disputed property T.S. No. 5/1997 was initiated by Jasoda Sahoo, Kunja Sabatani, Ramesh Ch. Sahoo and Sri Radha Krushna Lalit as plaintiffs against the respondents therein seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession over the suit land in any manner and also recovering cost of the suit. It also appears that there is another suit in between the parties bearing M.S. No. 67/1983 at the instance of Kunja Sabatani and Ramesh Chandra Sahoo for realization of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand) from the defendants with interest. This suit was dismissed on contest. A money appeal bearing No. 2/1998 (M.A. No. 4/1991) was preferred involving Kunja Sabatani. The said appeal was decided by the judgment dated 20.2.1999. This suit was dismissed on contest. A money appeal bearing No. 2/1998 (M.A. No. 4/1991) was preferred involving Kunja Sabatani. The said appeal was decided by the judgment dated 20.2.1999. While the matter stood thus, a ceiling proceeding was initiated vide O.L.R. No. 1/1980 involving a suo-motu proceeding at the instance of the State involving Ramesh Chandra Sahoo, which proceeding was disposed of finally by order dated 16.5.1992 holding that in spite of providing sufficient opportunity, the petitioner did not cooperate the Court in providing his choice over the land involving the disputed property to be retained with him even after he lost a case in the High Court. As a consequence of which, the Tahasildar closed the matter holding that the scheduled ‘A’ property is finally treated as the land to be retained by the Ramesh Ch. Sahoo and the land shown in Scheduled ‘B’ is treated as the land vested in Government. 5. It is on the basis of the above improvement, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 4 claimed that after the ceiling proceeding was finally determined holding that the schedule ‘A’ property is to be retained with the present petitioner, the opposite party No. 4 based on a decision already held in his favour vide OTR Case No. 17/1959 subsequently, in appeal order vide OTR Appeal No. 3/1967 declining to interfere in the order passed in O.T.R. Case No. 15/1965, claimed that Bhaskar Samantara father of the opposite party No. 4 is already held to be a tenant under the landlord involving the disputed property vide schedule ‘B’ property and subsequently, initiated a proceeding for recording of the disputed land falling under the schedule ‘B’ already vested with the State by virtue of his father being the “Bhag Chasi” under the original landlord. In the said proceeding upon due inquiry the disputed land being found to be a part of the scheduled ‘B’ land has already been settled in favour of the petitioner in exercise of power under the OLR Act. There is also correction in the R.O.R. in the meantime. In the said proceeding upon due inquiry the disputed land being found to be a part of the scheduled ‘B’ land has already been settled in favour of the petitioner in exercise of power under the OLR Act. There is also correction in the R.O.R. in the meantime. In view of the entire history involved in the case and the developments taken place through the OLR proceeding finding the disputed property involved herein falling to the scheduled ‘B’ property, declared as ceiling surplus land and subsequently vested with the State and thereafter, settled in favour of the petitioner in the capacity of a “Bhag Chasi.” Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 4 claimed that since the petitioner has already lost his legal battle in the suo-motu ceiling proceeding, he has no semblance of right over the disputed property. Consequently, he has no locus-standi to initiate the R.C. Case No. 60/1996 seeking correction of R.O.R. in respect of the ‘B’ schedule property already held to ceiling surplus. 6. Learned State Counsel supported the stand of the opposite party no. 4 and attempted to justify the impugned order. 7. Hearing the rival contentions of the parties, going through the records produced by the respective parties and from the pleadings available through different proceedings, this Court finds involving the land belonging to the original owner-late Laxminarayan Sahoo, a ceiling proceeding under the OLR Act has already been initiated involving Jasoda and the OLR proceeding is already concluded reaching the level of the High Court in a writ petition holding that the present petitioner is entitled to the land falling under the schedule ‘A’ and the land falling under the scheduled ‘B’ property being surplus, vested with the State. 8. Now looking to the records concerning the OTR proceeding, this Court finds the original proceeding under the Act has been decided in favour of the father of the opposite party No. 4 finding him as a “Bhag tenant” under the original owner. This matter has also been challenged in an appeal vide OTR Appeal No. 3/1967 consequently, renumbered as Appeal No. 23/1969. This matter was also finally dismissed confirming the observations of the original Court holding the Bhaskar Samantara father of the opposite party no. 4 as a “Bhag tenant” under the original owner. This matter has also been challenged in an appeal vide OTR Appeal No. 3/1967 consequently, renumbered as Appeal No. 23/1969. This matter was also finally dismissed confirming the observations of the original Court holding the Bhaskar Samantara father of the opposite party no. 4 as a “Bhag tenant” under the original owner. Looking to the totality of the above, this Court finds the present dispute involving the schedule ‘B’ land which has been found to be surplus as against the original land owner and which matter has been concluded by the order of the High Court in a disposed writ petition. Under the circumstances, this Court finds for the finality of the ceiling surplus proceeding concluding the petitioner as the owner of the scheduled ‘A’ property and for the present dispute involved in scheduled ‘B’ property, the petitioner has no locus-standi to initiate the proceeding vide R.C. Case No. 60/1996. 9. Perused the impugned order passed in R.C. Case No. 60/1996. Looking to the observations made therein and further for the observations made hereinabove, this Court not only finds the petitioner has no locus-standi to have a claim in respect of the disputed property but also finds there is no infirmity in the impugned order leaving any scope to interfere in the same. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There is no order as to cost.