JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This writ petition is directed against the impugned order under Annexure-5 passed by the A.D.M., Koraput in exercise of power under the O.P.L.E. Act. 2. Short background involved in the case is that two Encroachment Cases bearing Nos.147/72 and 1/73 were initiated against Gopinath Pallo and Radhamohan Pallo for encroachment of land measuring an area Ac.0.520 decimals out of Ac.2.350 decimals, Khata No.234 and Ac.1.670 decimals out of Plot No.237. On enquiry it was found that there was no encroachment over Plot No.234. Accordingly, Encroachment Case No.147/72 was dropped and the other Encroachment Case was allowed to continue. The petitioner’s case rested on purchase of property by his adopted father by Registered Sale Deed No.4/1921 from one Nilakantha Sahoo, who had purchased the same from one Gopinath Pujari on 28.4.1919. It is claimed that for absence of his father at the time of survey, the land was wrongly recorded in favour of the Government. In the settlement proceeding, the petitioner claimed for settlement of the land in his favour. The Tahasildar after final hearing of the matter concluded that the land is a rayati land and not the Government land in O.P.L.E. Case No.1/73. In the year 1988, the Tahasildar again passed an order that on verification of records and the original documents produced by the respective parties, the Photostat copies were found to be correct. Ultimately, the Tahasildar dropped the Encroachment Case No.147/72 under the premises that he has no power to review the impugned order already passed by his predecessor and he forwarded the proceeding to the S.D.O. for consideration under Section 8-A of the O.P.L.E. Act. The Sub-Collector, Jeypore upon notice to the petitioner and the Tahasildar, Jeypore, concluded the matter finally after verifying the documents and found a case of long possession besides the support of a sale deed of 1921 in favour of the predecessor and thus directed for settlement of the land in favour of the petitioner and fixing the rent, as appearing at Annexure-4 series. Being aggrieved, the Tahasildar preferred a Revision and final order was passed by the revisional authority directing remand of the matter in the Revision. Being aggrieved, the Tahasildar preferred a Revision and final order was passed by the revisional authority directing remand of the matter in the Revision. The petitioner filed the present writ petition on the premises that even though the order in the Appeal was passed on 1.8.1991, the Revision was preferred in 1994, which was almost 3 years after and the Revision having not accompanied a delay condonation application was not maintainable. Secondly, the Revision was also not maintainable, as it was preferred by the Tahasildar and further the observations made by the revisional authority that the Appeal has been decided in absence of any enquiry, as contemplated under Section 8 of the O.P.L.E. Act., is erroneous. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this Court in Gulam Sarwar vrs. State of Orissa and others reported in 2011 (II) OLR-903 to support his stand that no revision at the instance of Tahasildar is maintainable. 4. Sri Sahu, learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand, seriously objecting the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Revision being entertained and decided finally, the question of limitation could not be gone into again. Further coming to the question finding in the Revision by the Tahasildar, Sri Sahu submitted that following the provision of Section 12 of the O.P.L.E. Act, particularly Section 12(2) of the Act, there is provision for entertaining a Revision and the property since claimed to be belonging to the State and further the Tahasildar since was contesting in the appeal, he had rightly filed the revision and the Collector is empowered to revise such decision. Coming to challenge to the direction for remand, Sri Sahu, learned Additional Standing Counsel, contended that for the observations made therein and as the Revisional Authority found the orders passed in absence of any enquiry in the proceeding under Section 8-A of the Act, there is no wrong committed by the Revisional Authority in remanding the matter. 5. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, admittedly the petitioner’s case for settlement was considered in an 8-A proceeding. Section 8-A(3) of the O.P.L.E.Act reads as follows :- “8-A-Settlement of land in cases of encroachment for more than thirty years – Xxx xxx xxx (2) On receipt of a reference under Sub-sec. 5. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, admittedly the petitioner’s case for settlement was considered in an 8-A proceeding. Section 8-A(3) of the O.P.L.E.Act reads as follows :- “8-A-Settlement of land in cases of encroachment for more than thirty years – Xxx xxx xxx (2) On receipt of a reference under Sub-sec. (1) the Sub-divisional Officer shall give the Department of the State Government (other than the Revenue Department) to which the land belongs, an opportunity to show cause against the settlement of the land and may make such further enquiry as he deems necessary.” (3) If after making such enquiry the Sub-divisional Officer is satisfied that such person has been in such occupation of the land as aforesaid, he may by order, settle the land with him and every such settlement shall be subject to such conditions, regarding assessment and payment of rent (including arrears of rent) as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act.” Looking to the aforesaid provision, no doubt there is necessity for entering into an enquiry but again provides that the Sub-Divisional Officer if satisfied that there is such requirement, may enter in the aspect of enquiry. Looking to the discussion made in the appellate order, this Court finds, the Sub-Divisional Officer had a threadbare discussion on all materials available on record and taking into question the existence of a sale deed of 1921 and the consequential long possession of the petitioner through his predecessors and finding Tahasildar failed to prove that the Land belongs to the State and nor the State has its right over it, came to find a case of settlement in favour of the petitioner. This being a subjective satisfaction, this Court observes that there was no need for any enquiry. Secondly, admittedly the Revision was filed almost after 3 years and in absence of consideration on the question of limitation, the Revision should not have been entertained and as such, the Revision was also otherwise barred on the premises of delay. This Court further observes that for sufficient materials available before the Appellate Authority and for no reverse view on the finding of the Appellate Authority, this Court otherwise finds the reasoning of the Revisional Authority not sustainable. This Court further observes that for sufficient materials available before the Appellate Authority and for no reverse view on the finding of the Appellate Authority, this Court otherwise finds the reasoning of the Revisional Authority not sustainable. For the reasons assigned by the Appellate Authority and the findings of the Revisional Authority, this Court finds, the revisional order suffers from non-consideration of question of delay and further this Court also finds, the order of the appellate authority remaining unassailable, the revisional order otherwise also remained bad. Under the circumstance, this Court while allowing the writ petition sets aside the impugned order vide Annexure-5 and restores the order, vide Annexure-4. This writ petition stands allowed. No Cost.