JUDGMENT : S.Panda, J. This Writ Application has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 02.1.1999 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack in O.E.A Revision Case No.24 of 1997 under Section 38 (B) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 setting aside the order dated 30.11.1993 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate, Sambalpur in O.E.A Appeal Case No.2 of 1993. 2. In pursuance of the order dated 01.8.2013 learned Addl. Government Advocate has produced the records and filed xerox copies of the same which are kept on record. 3. The facts narrated in the Writ Application reveal that one Hariram Singhania was the original petitioner and after his death, the petitioners being his legal heirs were impleaded in his place. O.E.A Case No.33/7-240/1965-66 was filed by one Dayanidhi Luhura and others praying for settlement of the land appertaining to Plot No.71 measuring an area of Ac.4.36 decimals and other five plots with a total area of Ac.6.18 decimals. The said case was renumbered as Jagir Case No.33/7-206/66. One Gokulananda Patel, the Ex-Gauntia also filed O.E.A Case No.33/7-228/1965-66 praying for settlement of the self same area in his favour. Both these cases were heard analogously in Jagir Case No.206 of 1966. 3.1 The then O.E.A Collector-cum-Tahasildar, Jharsuguda vide his order dated 26.12.1966 forwarded the case to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Sambalpur along with his findings for further action regarding claims made by the parties. The Sub-Divisional Officer on enquiry found that Hariram Singhania was in possession of the land and impleaded him as party to Jagir Case No.206 of 1966. Notice was issued and said Jagir Case No.206 of 1966 was disposed of on 31.8.1971 with the following findings:- “The possession of Hariram Singhania on 01.7.1964 if accepted, a question would arise whether he can be settled in respect of the land on ‘Raiyat’ basis though instruction reveals that Jagir holdings will be settled with the Jagirdar, their heirs or any other persons in actual cultivating possession as on 01.7.1964. The possession would naturally mean authorized possession. Hariram has not been able to show any such authority, therefore, though he was in possession of the land covered by P.W.D Road (portion marked ‘B’ in the trace map dated 15.12.1966), he is not entitled for settlement of the said land. Action will be taken for recovery of possession. The possession would naturally mean authorized possession. Hariram has not been able to show any such authority, therefore, though he was in possession of the land covered by P.W.D Road (portion marked ‘B’ in the trace map dated 15.12.1966), he is not entitled for settlement of the said land. Action will be taken for recovery of possession. The claim of Gokulananda was also not accepted as he was not in possession of the land. The fact of surrender of the lands by Janaki in the year 1950 is invalid in law because it violates Section 56 (2) of Central Provinces Tenancy Act. Therefore, the possession of Gokulananda, on whom the land was surrendered by Janaki not accepted. Hariram claim possession since 1959 and during spot inspection he has stated that the walls etc. were constructed near about 1962. Therefore, the report of the Tahasildar regarding possession of Hariram for long time was not accepted as the construction of wall etc. were done five years back and the possession being that of a trespasser liable to be evicted under Central Provinces Tenancy Act. This is obviously not possible because the lands have not ceased to have the characteristic of Jagir lands envisaged in the said Act consequent on the enforcement of notification on 01.7.1964.” 3.2 The aforesaid order dated 31.8.1971 passed in Jagir Case No.206 of 1966 was challenged by Gokulananda in O.E.A Appeal Case No.162 of 1971 before the Addl. District Magistrate. The appellate authority by order dated 09.7.1973 disallowed the claim made by Gokulananda. Hence the order dated 31.8.1971 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in Jagir Case No.206 of 1966 being confirmed by the Addl. District Magistrate had become final as the Jagir land cannot be settled with other person. Thereafter neither Gokulananda nor Hariram challenged the said order before the higher forum. 4. While matter stood thus, Hariram filed a fresh O.E.A Case No.565 of 1980 for settlement of the land appertaining to Plot No.71 measuring an area of Ac.4.36 decimals corresponding to Hal Plot No.50. During pendency of the said O.E.A Case No.565 of 1980, one Nagendranath Roy, retired I.P.S resident of Cuttack filed Misc. Case No.2 of 1985 before the Sub-Divisional Officer on 17.5.1985 to take over possession of the said plot as per the order dated 31.8.1971 of the O.E.A Collector in O.E.A Case No.240 of 1965-66. During pendency of the said O.E.A Case No.565 of 1980, one Nagendranath Roy, retired I.P.S resident of Cuttack filed Misc. Case No.2 of 1985 before the Sub-Divisional Officer on 17.5.1985 to take over possession of the said plot as per the order dated 31.8.1971 of the O.E.A Collector in O.E.A Case No.240 of 1965-66. The Sub-Divisional Officer by order dated 16.5.1987 directed the Tahasildar, Jharsuguda to take over possession of the suit land from Hariram. Accordingly, the O.E.A Collector by its order dated 19.5.1993 in O.E.A Case No.565 of 1980 rejected the prayer of Hariram. Challenging the said order Hariram filed O.E.A Appeal No.2 of 1993 before the Addl. District Magistrate. The appellate authority by order dated 30.11.1993 ignoring the order dated 31.8.1971 passed in Jagir Case No.206 of 1966, which was confirmed by his predecessor on 09.7.1973, directed the O.E.A Collector for assessment of rent and cess and settlement of the suit land in favour of Hariram. 5. Being aggrieved the State Government preferred O.E.A Revision Case No.24 of 1997 before the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack under Section 38-B of Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951. The Revisional Authority after vividly discussing the chronological facts regarding filing of O.E.A Cases and Appeals by the impugned order recorded the following findings:- “Whether the Addl. District Magistrate in O.E.A Appeal Case No.2 of 1993 can override the orders passed in O.E.A Appeal Case No.162 of 1971 in respect of the suit land while the area and parties in both the cases are same. Hariram was a party in O.E.A Case No.206 of 1966 and O.E.A Appeal Case No.162 of 1971 and contested the same. Hence, he was prevented from filing Bebondobasta Case No.565 of 1980. As no provision contained in O.E.A Act empowered the Addl. District Magistrate to revise the order of his predecessor between the same parties and for the same claim, the order dated 19.5.1993 passed in O.E.A Appeal Case No.2 of 1993 appears to be without jurisdiction. The order passed in O.E.A Appeal Case No.162 of 1971 is binding on Hariram. On such circumstances the order dated 19.5.1993 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate to revise the order of his predecessor between the same parties and for the same claim, the order dated 19.5.1993 passed in O.E.A Appeal Case No.2 of 1993 appears to be without jurisdiction. The order passed in O.E.A Appeal Case No.162 of 1971 is binding on Hariram. On such circumstances the order dated 19.5.1993 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate in O.E.A Appeal Case No.2 of 1993 is set aside and the Tahasildar, Jharsuguda is directed to record the suit area in Anabadi Khata of State Government and to take steps to evict Hariram or whoever else is in possession through Hariram and to collect penalty for the period of his illegal possession.” 6 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Bebondobasta Case No.565 of 1980 filed by the petitioners need to be considered as it was not under the provision of Orissa Estates Abolition Act rather the claim was on the basis of physical possession of the claimant before the date of vesting i.e. 01.7.1964. The petitioners claim to be in possession of the land since 1959. The appellate authority by order dated 19.5.1993 in O.E.A Appeal Case No.2 of 1993 directed for settlement of the land with the petitioners. The revisional authority should not have set aside the said order in exercising jurisdiction under Section 38-B of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951. 7. Learned Addl. Government Advocate however, supported the impugned order and submitted that the original petitioner being a party to O.E.A Case No.206 of 1966 and also to O.E.A Appeal Case No.162 of 1971 has not challenged the orders passed therein before the higher forum, as such the same are binding on him. Therefore, the Revisional Authority taking into consideration all those facts has passed the impugned order under Section 38-B of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951, which need not be interfered with. 8. Considering the rival contention of the parties and after going through the records, it appears that the claim of the original petitioner was rejected on merit in O.E.A Case No.206 of 1966 as well as in O.E.A Appeal Case No.162 of 1971 as such the said findings had become final. The said fact was admitted by the parties. 8. Considering the rival contention of the parties and after going through the records, it appears that the claim of the original petitioner was rejected on merit in O.E.A Case No.206 of 1966 as well as in O.E.A Appeal Case No.162 of 1971 as such the said findings had become final. The said fact was admitted by the parties. Hence, the findings in those two proceedings are binding on the original petitioner and he cannot turn around by filing a fresh claim in Bebondobasta Case No.565 of 1980 without challenging the orders, which had become final and binding on the parties. The Revisional Authority has rightly come to a conclusion that the order passed by the Addl. District Magistrate in O.E.A Appeal Case No.2 of 1993 is not sustainable as the appellate authority has no jurisdiction to pass such order by reviewing the orders passed in O.E.A Case No.206 of 1966 and O.E.A Appeal No.162 of 1971. 9. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and as there is no error apparent on the face of the record, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this Writ Application along with Misc. Case is dismissed. The interim order dated 19.2.1999 passed by this Court in Misc. Case No.1909 of 1999 stands vacated.