JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order passed by the Commissioner, Land Records & Settlement, Cuttack involving R.P. No.810/2006 deciding a matter in exercise of power under Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey & Settlement Act, 1958. 2. Short background involved in this case is that the suit property was under intermediary sabik khata no.771 in the names of (1) Sama Rath s/o. Suryamani Rath (2) Biswambara Rath s/o. Krushna Rath (3) Karna Rath s/o. Tila Rath (4) Tulasi Debya w/o. Ghana Rath (5) Poka Debya w/o. Gobinda Rath. Under this intermediary sabik khata, two Praja khata nos.772 & 773 in the names of Bai Sahu and others existed. Out of recorded intermediaries, Hrudamani is the son of Sama Rath and Banchhanidhi is the son of Biswambar Rath. The other intermediaries died without leaving any heir behind. So the surviving intermediary remained with 50% share of the suit land. Further pleading reveals from Yadast 87 that the O.Ps. and their predecessors in interest in Praja khata (sabik) nos.772 & 773 have surrendered their rights to the intermediaries by writing on the sabik khatians and claimed that it is as a result, two surviving intermediaries became sthitiban tenants in respect of the suit land. From the Amin’s report no.427, it appears that the O.Ps. in the revision admitted that they had long since surrendered their right to the intermediaries by proper documentation. A partition was made between Hrudamani and Banchhanidhi each having 50% share in the two Praja khatas and the petitioners being the purchasers of 50% property from Banchhanidhi, they claimed the recording of the disputed land in their favour. 3. The contesting O.Ps. in the revisional court denying the contention of the petitioners submitted that the registered sale deed executed by the successor of the intermediary relates to sabik khata nos.771 and sabik plot no.772 totaling Ac.0.97decs., whereas the suit hal plots relate to sabik plot nos.73 to 77. It is, thus contended that the petitioners are not entitled to be recorded against the suit land. The claim of the petitioners is further contested on the premises that after vesting of estate, the intermediaries had no right, title and interest to alienate and since the petitioners purchased the property from the persons having no title, the sale deeds are void. 4. The claim of the petitioners is further contested on the premises that after vesting of estate, the intermediaries had no right, title and interest to alienate and since the petitioners purchased the property from the persons having no title, the sale deeds are void. 4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the trial court found that the registered sale deed no.4022 dated 28.5.1958 again relying on a sale involving registered sale deed no.567 dated 2.2.1943, which sale deed never came to the light. Thus, there was ample material to establish that on the vesting of disputed properties with the State on coming into effect of the Orissa Survey & Settlement Act, 1958, the rights of O.Ps.2 to 10 in the revision got extinguished for the property vested in State, accordingly, Banchhanidhi Rath had no right to sale the land in1958. 5. Under the circumstance, this Court finds, there is no infirmity in the findings of the revisional court leaving any scope for interfering in the impugned order. The writ petition stands dismissed for having no merit. No cost.