JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order under Annexure-4 to this petition. 2. In assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the dispute involving the parties in contest, has been adjudicated upon in a properly constituted Objection Case bearing No.124 of 1997, no proceeding under Section 37 (1) of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act was maintainable. Further, in absence of challenge to the order passed in Objection Case, the Commissioner had also no authority to interfere in the directions therein and decide the revision on critical analysis of the same. 3. Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand, though not disputed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the maintainability of the proceeding under Section 37 (1) of the Act but however, justified the impugned order on the premises that the revisional authority has considered all these aspects and taken a decision on the basis of the materials available on record and therefore, contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order leaving any scope to interfere in the same. 4. None appears for the opposite party Nos.3 to 5 in spite of notice. 5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, based on a registered sale deed vide Annexure-1 the present petitioner initiated the Objection Case bearing No.124 of 1997 involving the contesting opposite parties and this matter was decided on contest allowing the Objection Case in favour of the present petitioner. It appears, there is no challenge to the directions given in the Objection Case No.124 of 1997. From perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds the present proceeding was admittedly initiated under Section 37 (1) of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act. 6. Considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in existence of the order passed in Objection Case and further, in absence of any challenge to that in the higher Forums, the order under Annexure-2 remained binding on the parties, defects if any, therein could not have been gone into in the proceeding under Section 37 (1) of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act. This Court finds force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and therefore, observes that the Revisional Authority has failed in understanding the purpose behind the Section 37 (1) of the Act and thus, the Revisional Authority has exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining such a case. No proceeding under Section 37(1) of the Act is entertainable, so long there exist in the objection case. Under the circumstances, this Court finds the impugned order under Annexure-4 cannot be sustained and this Court while allowing the writ petition, sets aside the impugned order under Annexure-4 to this petition. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. Parties to bear their respective costs.