JUDGMENT In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 17.2.2016 passed by the Sub-Collector, Sonepur under Annexure-3 and also prayed for a direction to the Sub-Collector to immediately accord permission for transfer/sale of land in terms of the order passed under Annexure-1 to the writ application. 2.Heard Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.P. Mohapara, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 3.Mr. Mishra, leaned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to Schedule Caste community with the sub-caste “Ganda” and he is a permanent resident of Subarnapur district. The petitioner, who is presently ailing, has got sufficient landed properties. He has also got a grown up daughter, whose marriage was fixed but the marriage could not be performed due to paucity of fund. The wife of the petitioner is also ailing from multiple disorders, for which huge funds are required for her treatment. For these reasons, the petitioner wanted to sell part of his property measuring an area of Ac.0.620 under Khata No.90, Plot No.448 of Moauza – Sonepur, Unit-3. But since no purchaser was available from his community to purchase the land at the present market rate, the petitioner made an application under Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960, for short, “the Act” before the Sub-Collector, Sonepur (Opposite Party N.2) for grant of permission for sale of patch of land. On such application, Case No.24 of 2012 was instituted. Ultimately, vide order dated 12.8.2014, opposite party No.2 granted permission for transferring only Ac.0.150 decimals of land. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority under “the Act” and the same was registered as OLR Appeal No.4 of 2014. Vide Annexure-1, the said appeal was allowed on 22.4.2015 setting aside the order dated 12.8.2014 passed by opposite party No.2 Sub-Collector, Sonepur and permitting transfer of land covering an area of Ac.0.620 decimals. The Appellate Authority also directed that the copy of the order along with certified copy of LCR be sent to opposite party No.2 for execution of his order. The Appellate Authority also directed that the copy of the order along with certified copy of LCR be sent to opposite party No.2 for execution of his order. Since opposite party No.2 did not execute the said order, the petitioner filed W.P. (C) No.22591 of 2015 on 15.12.2015 before this Court for a direction to opposite party No.2 to immediately carry out the orders passed by the Appellate Authority under Annexure-1.The said writ application was disposed of on 21.12.2015 directing opposite party No.2 to accord necessary permission for alienation of the land in favour of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of production of certified of the order, if there was no other impediment. According to Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the above noted order of this Court was duly produced before opposite party No.2. However, opposite party No.2 has passed a strange order under Annexure-3 rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of permission after finding fault with the way proceeding was conducted by the Appellate Authority. (who has passed the order under Annexure-1) as if he was sitting in appeal over the order passed by the appellate authority. Accordingly, Mr. Mishra submitted that by doing so, the opposite party No.2 has mis-conducted himself as he is bound to honour the order of the Appellate Authority, till the same is altered or reversed by any higher forum. He further submitted that opposite party No.2 has no jurisdiction/authority to find fault with the appellant order nor has he got any jurisdiction/authority to comment on the manner of disposal of the appeal by the appellate authority. Mr. Mishra submitted that the appellate order under Annexure-1 still holds the field and has not been reversed by any higher forum. Therefore, according to him the order under Annexure-3 is a perverse one and being product of arbitrary use of power by opposite party No.2 is liable to be set aside. 4.Mr. Mohapatra, learned Additional Government Advocate fairly submitted that the order under Annexure-3 is not legally defensible. 5.It appears from Annexure-1 that the appellate authority under Annexure-1 allowed OLR Appeal No.4 of 2014 on 22.4.2015 and the same as per the submissions made at the Bar, remain unchallenged. Vide said order, the appellate authority-Additional District Magistrate, Subarnapur set aside the order dated 12.8.2014 passed by opposite party No.2 in Case No.24 of 2012. 5.It appears from Annexure-1 that the appellate authority under Annexure-1 allowed OLR Appeal No.4 of 2014 on 22.4.2015 and the same as per the submissions made at the Bar, remain unchallenged. Vide said order, the appellate authority-Additional District Magistrate, Subarnapur set aside the order dated 12.8.2014 passed by opposite party No.2 in Case No.24 of 2012. He also sent back the certified copy of the LCR along with order under Annexure-1 to opposite party No.2 with a direction to execute the order. When opposite party No.2 sat silent over the matter, the petitioner filed W.P. (C) No.22591 of 2015 before this Court with a prayer for a direction to opposite party No.2 to immediately carry out the order under Annexure-1 passed by the appellate authority. Accordingly, the said writ application was disposed of on 21.12.2015 directing opposite party No.2 to accord necessary permission for alienation in favour of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of the order, if there was no other impediment . In the impugned order under Annexure-3, opposite party No.2 has pointed out a number of impediments mainly of procedural nature and accordingly, has not granted permission under Section 22 of “the Act”. According to him, Case no.24 of 2012 filed before him was yet to be disposed of by him and when an order of the Court has not been pronounced in the open Court in the midst of proceeding, appeal should not have been admitted. Secondly, the appellate authority has passed the order without calling for the LCR and that the appellate Court considered new grounds which were not originally pleaded by the petitioner. Thirdly, he noted that the appeal case was not admitted in the appeal register. Although, the case was initiated on 19.2.2014, it was not posted in the Court diary. Opposite Party No.2 also referred to some manipulations with regard to the communication of the appellate order. Further, opposite party No.2 has indicated that the officer passed the appellate order on the verge of transfer and the order was back dated. Now the question arises whether the above noted impediments as pointed out by opposite party No.2 can be taken as impediments for executing the appellate order under Annexure-1 as directed by the appellate authority. For this, few facts are to be kept in mind. Now the question arises whether the above noted impediments as pointed out by opposite party No.2 can be taken as impediments for executing the appellate order under Annexure-1 as directed by the appellate authority. For this, few facts are to be kept in mind. The first and foremost fact is that till date Annexure-1, which is the appellate order still stands. It has not been set aside by any higher forum as on date. To a query made by this Court, Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner filed the certified copy of the order dated 12.8.2014 passed by the opposite party No.2 in Case No.24 of 2012 along with a memo. The said certified copy is kept on record. From the said order, it is crystal clear that except for the exact site of the land on which opposite party No.2 wanted to give permission, however, he has expressed his final opinion that transfer of the holding was to be limited to an area of Ac.0.150 decimals. In such background, the view of opposite party No.2 that he is yet to dispose of Case No.24 of 2012 has no legs to stand. The same cannot be an impediment for executing the appellate order. Further, the opposite Party No.2 highlighted the factum of non-calling of LCR by the appellate authority. The same also cannot be treated as procedural impediment as the order under Annexure-1 makes it clear that the appellate authority had before him the certified copy of the LCR while passing the order dated 22.4.2015. Similarly, by pointing out new grounds being taken by the petitioner beyond the original grounds as an impediment, the opposite party No.2 has acted as if he is sitting on appeal over the order under Annexure-1.Further non- mentioning of appeal in the appeal register and non-posting of all dates in the Court diary are of little importance at the stage of execution of the matter as directed by the appellate authority under Annexure-1.Similarly, some clerical problems relating to communication of the appellate order, cannot take away effect the appellate order under Annexure-1 and the impediment relating to execution of appellate order on the ground that the order was back dated is also not acceptable as the same is not backed by any evidence. It seems in pointing out the impediments, the opposite party No.2 has crossed “laxman rekha” and has acted as an appellate authority. Had there been an order from higher forum in the meantime staying operation of the appellate order or setting aside the appellate order, that could have been cited as an impediment. However, in the present case, till date the order under Annexure-1 stands and impediments pointed out by opposite party No.2 are frivolous in nature and are to be ignored. By issuing the order under Annexure-3, the opposite party No.2 has exceeded his jurisdiction in any case, opposite party No.2 has no authority to comment on the manner of disposal of the appeal by the appellate authority and in such background, opposite party No.2 committed an error and acted arbitrarily by refusing to accord permission in tune with the order passed by the appellate authority under Annexure-1 sighting frivolous reasons 6.For all these reasons, the order under Annexure-3 is quashed and opposite party No.2 is directed to accord necessary permission for transfer/sale of land in terms of the order under Annexure-1 within two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The writ application is accordingly allowed. No costs. Application allowed.