JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. Both the writ applications have been filed assailing the orders under Annexres-5 to 7 passed by the authorities under the Orissa Consolidation Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (in short, “O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act”). 2. Factual matrix as available on record is that the disputed land appertains to 1929 Settlement Khata No.651, Plot No.1070, Ac.0.363 decimals and Khata No.653, Plot No.1071, Ac.0.161 decimals corresponding to Final Consolidation Plot Nos.2078 and 2077 in the final settlement Record of Rights, 1929, was recorded in the names of Phagu Behera and others having stitiban status with rent fixed in kind “Dhulibhag Mayasesa”. The sale deed also recorded stitiban tenants of the Khatas mentioned herein above in favour of Ganeswar Swain, O.P.1, since deceased, his heirs have been substituted in the meantime appearing as private opposite parties herein and Rasananda Sahoo, father of the petitioner. It is alleged that since the land was purchased in the names of father of the petitioner as well as O.P.1, the original sale deed somehow remained with the father of O.P.1 and then, O.P.1, who in a clandestine manner managed the hatapata to get his name recorded in the settlement records and during settlement in the year 1979, he managed to produce the hatapata in clear suppression of the sale deed aspect and got his name recorded in the settlement records finally published in the year 1977. It is claimed that after the death of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner is in possession of the land along with O.P.1. In the meantime, O.P.1 filed Objection Case No.1112/155 for exclusive recording of the entire land in his name. The petitioner also filed a separate Objection Case No.769 of 1979 for recording of separate share to the extent of 50% following the sale deed indicated herein above. It is further claimed that the Assistant Consolidation Officer partly allowed the claim of the petitioner directing the recording of Ac.0.090 decimals in the name of the petitioner with a consequential direction of recording of the balance land in favour of O.P.1. It is further claimed that the Assistant Consolidation Officer partly allowed the claim of the petitioner directing the recording of Ac.0.090 decimals in the name of the petitioner with a consequential direction of recording of the balance land in favour of O.P.1. It is contended that after long gap of time, the petitioner initiated before the Commissioner, Consolidation, Cuttack a proceeding under Section 37(1) of the O.C.H. & O.F.L. Act challenging the decision of Assistant Commissioner of Consolidation, whereas the O.P.1 initiated a 37(1) proceeding for recording the land in his name on the basis of the hatapata granted in the year 1951 and the Ekapadia standing in his name further taking help of the rent receipts in proof of the same. The Commissioner, Consolidation, however, considering the case of both the sides remanded both the matters to the Consolidation Officer by his order for re-consideration of the case. It is submitted here that upon reconsideration of the matters involving both the aforesaid Revisions, O.P.2 by his common order dated 6.4.1992 while dismissing the Remand Revision Case at the instance of the petitioner, allowed the Remand Revision Case at the instance of O.P.1. The petitioner challenging the aforesaid two orders preferred two Appeals, i.e., Appeal Case Nos.133/1992 and 106/1992. Both the Appeals were heard again together and again by a common order dated 16.2.1993, the appellate authority dismissed both the Appeals. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred two Revisions, i.e. Consolidation Revision Nos.411/1993 and 412/1993 before O.P.4 and it appears, both the Revisions were also dismissed by a common judgment on 6.2.1996 giving rise to the present writ application. 3. Assailing the impugned orders, Sri Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that since the dispute involving a sale deed entered into at the instance of the original owner fixing rent in kind by way of Dhulibhag Mayasesa and further since the tenants were stitiban tenants, all the courts below have failed in appreciating the terms and the sale deed aspect and have arrived in wrong conclusion based on non-existing materials like, Jamabandi, Ekpadia and Rent Receipts so claimed by O.P.1. The sale deed referred to herein above could not have been ignored by all the courts. The sale deed referred to herein above could not have been ignored by all the courts. It is on these premises, Sri Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner, in both the matters claimed, the impugned orders in both the writ petitions as bad in law and deserve to be interfered with and set aside. 4. Sri B.Dash, learned counsel for the private O.Ps.1(a) to 1(g), on the other hand strenuously refuting the claim of the petitioner in the matter of claim over the sale deed submitted that the sale deed stood extinguished since long for non-payment of rent fixed therein and thereafter, the ex-intermediary having entered into Jamabandi and Hatapata on 8.2.1944 and further for the payment of rent fixed therein, upon grant of due receipt and for the subsequent recording of the names of the private opposite parties against the land in exercise of power under the Orissa Estate Abolition Act and for the entries in the subsequent consolidation proceedings, Sri Dash, learned counsel for O.Ps.1(a) to 1(g), claimed, the findings of the courts below having based on materials available on record is not only appropriate and legal but leaves no scope for interference by this Court. 5. Sri K.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government, appearing for O.Ps.2 to 4, on the other hand, while opposing the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterated the stand taken by Sri B.Dash, learned counsel for the private opposite parties and tried to justify the impugned orders. 6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, the claim of the petitioner revolves around Registered Sale Deed No.6031 dated 28.9.1935, whereas the case of the private opposite parties and the legal heirs being substituted thereafter appearing as O.Ps.1(a) to 1(g) rests not only on the fact that the sale deed has been rolled back subsequently and thereafter upon creation of a hatapata in the year 1944 and further rent receipts having been granted by the intermediary upon receipt of rent, preparation of Jamabandi in favour of the petitioner at appropriate time itself under the Orissa Estate Abolition Authorities in favour of the predecessor of the private opposite parties. This Court from the scan of the impugned order at Annexure-5 passed by the original authority, finds the original authority hearing the R.C. Case Nos.185/85 and 303/84 ; one at the instance of the petitioner and the other at the instance of the father of the private opposite parties, has given the following finding :- “…………….Some of the recorded R.S.tenants and successors of other recorded R.S. tenants of the suit lands had transferred the suit lands in favour of Ganeswar Swsain and Rasananda Sahoo by Regd. Sale Deed No.6031 dt.28.9.35. It is mentioned in the hata patta dt.8.2.44 issued by Ex-intermediary Basanta Kumar Dasi that since the vendees namely Rasananda Sahoo and Ganeswar Swain failed to pay rent to the ex-intermediary, the later, resumed the suit lands and executed an unregistered hand patta to Ganeswar Swain. It is revealed from the rent receipts produced by Ganeswar Swain that he was accepted as a rayat by the ex-intermediary and latter on by Govt. The report of the present Assistant Consolidation Officer attached to the case record reveals that Ganeswar Swain has been possessing the suit lands. Mahendranath Sahoo, S/o. Nityananda Sahoo has stated that his father was in possession over Ac.0.090 of the suit land for which Ac.0.090 has been recorded in the name of his father as per consent of Ganeswar and Ganeswar who had also assured him to allot rest lands of Ac.0.090 dec. As per his father’s illegibility as per R.S.D. from this own land which was betrayed by Ganeswar later on. This contention of Sri Sahoo was not established by him on the Goun that the witnesses could not adduce the description of the lands which are the subject matter of dispute among parties. Further they felt to adduce the date of village meeting held to settle the dispute among the parties. Furthermore Bipra Charan Bhuyan and Dadhi Baman Rout. Both the witnesses produce on behalf of Sri Nityananda Sahoo, stated in their cross-examination that in a village meeting the matter regarding dispute over the suit land as discussed before publication of records u/s 9(1) of the Act. In the said meeting among other persons Madan Rout and Hemanta Kumar Saran were present but during examination and cross-examination both Shri Rout and Sri Saran have stated that they have not attended any meeting to settle the dispute between Sri Swain and Sri Sahoo. In the said meeting among other persons Madan Rout and Hemanta Kumar Saran were present but during examination and cross-examination both Shri Rout and Sri Saran have stated that they have not attended any meeting to settle the dispute between Sri Swain and Sri Sahoo. Thus it appears the stand taken by Sri Nityananda SAhoo that there was an amicable settlement between him and Sri Swain to give the rest Ac.0.090 lf lands elsewhere is not correct. If Sri Sahoo had his claim over Ac.0.180 as he has claimed in this Revision case out of the suit lands. He should have claimed for Ac.0.180 dec. In the objection filed u/s 9(3) of the Act or preferred appealed u/s 12 against the order of A.C.O. as per law. The statement of Sri Sahoo is self contradictory. He states that his father had 50% share in the purchased lands where as his father was in possession (as per his statement) over Ac.0.090 in place of Ac.0.180. Further Nityananda SAhoo has claimed (1/4th area of the suit plots in objection case filed u/s 9(3) of the Act and as it appears somebody else signed in the objection case (769/79) as Nityananda Sahoo as the signatory of Nityananda Sahoo does not tally with his signature which he has signed in the case record in objection case no.769/79. The objector Sri Sahoo in R.P. Case No.185/85 had mentioned in his petition before the Commissioner that the O.P. Sri Swain had filed objection case No.112/105/83 in the court of the A.C.O. Pallisahi and the same was referred to the C.O. Mahanga and the same was disposed of by order dated 23.11.83 which confirmed order of objection case No.769/79 passed by A.C.O., Pallisahi. He had further stated that the C.O., Mahanga without applying his judicial mind passed a mechanical order allotting only Ac.0.090 due to the petitioner. Although he is to get Ac.0.182 dec. In this connection it is observed that the O.P. Sri Swain filed case No.1112/105/83 u/s 18(2) of the Act before the C.O., Mahanga and the learned C.O. in his order dt.23.11.83 disallowed. The claim of Sri Swain since it was not maintainable u/s.18(2) and this order does not mean that the learned Consolidation Officer confirmed the order of the A.C.O. passed in objection case No.769/79. The claim of Sri Swain since it was not maintainable u/s.18(2) and this order does not mean that the learned Consolidation Officer confirmed the order of the A.C.O. passed in objection case No.769/79. Further the objector Sri Sahoo filed a petition to record 1/4th share of R.S. plot No.1070 and 1071 measuring Ac 0.360 dec. u/s 9(3) of the Act vide case No.769/79 but has stated in his petition before the honourable Commissioner Consolidation that the Consolidation Officer had not applied his judicial mind to allot Ac 0.182 dec. which appears to be quite ridiculous. On the other hand, Ganeswar Swain has taken steps and has got the land recorded in his name in 1977 settlement as per his document and possession.” 7. Reading of the aforesaid observations, this Court finds, the plea of the petitioner that the decision of the original authority was based on non-existing material and in ignorance of the sale deed runs contrary to the materials available on record. It appears, there are number of documents available clearly establishing the case of the private opposite parties, which has also been taken a meticulous consideration by the original authority. Further scan of the orders passed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority, this Court also observes that the petitioner miserably failed in establishing that the findings given by the original authority based on no materials available on record. This apart, there appears, there is concurrent finding of facts on establishing a case in favour of the private opposite parties by all the three forums. 8. For the reasons indicated herein above and the observations as well as for the concurrent finding of facts by all the forums, this Court finds no scope for interfering with the impugned orders under Annexures-5 to 7 in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, both the writ applications stand dismissed. However, there is no order as to cost.