ORDER 1.12.2016 Heard Mr. D.N.Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the opposite party Nos. 6 to 8. In spite of appearance of a set of counsel on behalf of the private opposite party No. 3, nobody appears on behalf of him at the time of call. This writ petition has been filed assailing the impugned order passed by the revisional authority in O.L.R. Revision Case No. 53 of 1993 under Annexure-3 to this petition. In assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that considering the claim of the private opposite party in the matter of tenancy, both the original Courts as well as the appellate Court in proper appreciation of the entire materials available on record came to hold that the private opposite party failed in establishing his right of tenancy over the disputed property. In revision the revisional authority in wrong appreciation of the materials available on record erroneously reversed the finding of both the Courts below and allowed the revision declaring the private opposite party as a tenant involving the disputed property. Referring to the recordings of deposition in the cross-examination of the tenants recorded at page 28, learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that for the admission of the private opposite party that they came to cultivate the land for the first time during the year 1963-64, this itself was a ground to discard their claim and the revisional authority failed in appreciating the same. Further, referring to a decision of this Court in a case in between Vaisayaraju Chandra Mauli Raju vrs. VAisayaraju Subramanyam Raju and another as reported in 1989 (1) O.L.R. 57, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the findings of the revisional authority also remained contrary to the decision of this Court. It is in these premises, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for interfering in the impugned order and setting aside the same. Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand, though not disputed to the factual aspect involved in the proceeding, but submitted that for the reasons assigned by the revisional authority in reversing the findings of both the Courts below, there is no scope in interfering in the impugned order. Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand, though not disputed to the factual aspect involved in the proceeding, but submitted that for the reasons assigned by the revisional authority in reversing the findings of both the Courts below, there is no scope in interfering in the impugned order. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, there is a clear admission by the private opposite party as clearly appearing from their cross-examination that they had come to cultivate the land for the first time in the year 1963-64. There remains no doubt that the induction of the tenancy has been claimed in the year 1963-64 i.e. after coming into force of the O.L.R. Act, 1960 in the year 1960. Such induction is per se illegal. Further, looking to the decision of this Court as relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioners, this Court also finds taking into consideration a similar question involved therein, this Court in a single Bench referring to another decision as reported in 1973 (2) CWR 1317 came to hold that tenancy created after commencement of the O.L.R. Act is non est in the eye of law and such person have no right under the Act. For the observations made hereinabove and for the above cited decisions, this Court finds, the findings of the revisional authority are not only contrary to the legal provisions but also against the settled position of law. Under the circumstances, this Court while interfering in the impugned order under Annexure-3 to this petition, sets asides the same and allows the writ petition. The writ petition stands allowed with the above direction. Issue urgent certified copy on proper application. Appeal dismissed.