JUDGMENT : K.R. Mohapatra, J. Order dated 21.1.1995 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Kendrapara (opposite party No.1) in Lease Revision Case No.1 of 1995 is under challenge in this writ application. 2. One Hasina Bibi (opposite party No.3 herein) was settled with Ac.0.260 decimals of ‘patita’ kissam of land appertaining to plot No.2351 of khata No.954 of village-Garapur in the district of Kendrapara (for short ‘the case land’) by Tahasildar-cum-Revenue Officer, Kendrapara (opposite party no.2 herein), in Lease Case No. 167 of 1993. Opposite Party No.2 consequent upon receiving the application in Lease Case No. 167 of 1993, made enquiry, and holding that Opposite Party No.3 was a landless person, settled the land in her favour. The Sub-Collector, Kendrapara subsequently confirmed the said lease on 3.3.1994. 3. Assailing the settlement, the petitioner preferred Lease Revision case No. 1 of 1995 under Section 7-A (3) of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (for short ‘the Act’). The Opposite Party No.1 dismissed the revision by his order dated 21.9.1995 holding that the revision was barred by limitation and no irregularity was committed by Opposite Party No.2 while settling the land in favour of the Opposite Party No.3. 4. On the aforesaid factual backdrop, the writ application has been filed. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revision under Section 7-A (3) of the Act can be entertained within fourteen years from the date of the impugned order. Opposite Party No.3 was not a landless person. The petitioner is in possession of the case land. But, she was not served with any notice by the Opposite Party No.2. Though the petitioner had raised such contentions before the revisional authority, the same was not considered. Hence, the impugned order under Annexure-3 is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed. 5. Mr. K.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate as well as Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned counsel for opposite party No.3 defending the impugned order submitted that there is no material irregularity or illegality in the impugned order. The Lease Revision Case No. 1 of 1995 is essentially a Revision under Section 7-A (1) of the Act, which ought to have been filed within 90 days from the date of passing of the impugned order. Further, the revision petition was not accompanied by a petition for condonation of delay. The Lease Revision Case No. 1 of 1995 is essentially a Revision under Section 7-A (1) of the Act, which ought to have been filed within 90 days from the date of passing of the impugned order. Further, the revision petition was not accompanied by a petition for condonation of delay. There was general proclamation by beat of drum in the locality inviting objection before settlement of the case land. A copy of the notice was also affixed on the notice board of office of the Grama Panchayat. The petitioner had not raised/ filed any objection within the period stipulated in the notice before the settlement of the case land in favour of the Opposite Party No.3. In course of adjudication, the Opposite Party No. 2 had called for a report from R.I., Gararpur. The report revealed that the petitioner was a landless and homesteadless person and her income was Rs.3,500/- per annum. An affidavit was also filed by the petitioner herself to the effect that she was a landless person. The Opposite Party No.2 taking into consideration the aforesaid materials on record settled the case land in favour of Opposite Party No.3. In such view of the matter, the impugned order needs no interference and the writ petition being devoid of any merit liable to be dismissed. 6. In order to test the veracity of the statements and submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court asked Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner to produce the copy of the revision petition. Ground-(E) of the revision petition produced by Mr. Mohanty, reads as follows: “For that, the learned lower Court should have held that O.P. is not a landless person as Hal Khata No.20, Hal Plot No.171 measuring an area of Ac.0.03 decs., Plot No.167 measuring an area of homestead land of Ac. 0.02, Hal Plot No.168 measuring an area of Ac.0.02, Homestead recorded in favour of father of Respondent Mir Zanab of village-Mahipal. That husband of O.P. is doing rice business and earning near about Rs.3000/-per month. Both O.P. and her husband are residing at Mahipal.” It clearly reveals from the ground taken in the Revision petition that the petitioner had made specific grievance to the effect that the Opposite Party No.3 is not a landless or homesteadless person as alleged. She had also furnished details of the land in her possession. Both O.P. and her husband are residing at Mahipal.” It clearly reveals from the ground taken in the Revision petition that the petitioner had made specific grievance to the effect that the Opposite Party No.3 is not a landless or homesteadless person as alleged. She had also furnished details of the land in her possession. The said contention, though raised before the Revisional Authority, was apparently not taken into consideration, while passing the impugned order. Further, the submission Mr. Mishra and Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the opposite parties to the effect that the revision filed by the petitioner was under Section 7-A(1) of the Act, which should have been filed within 90 days from the date of the impugned order, is not correct for the reason that Section 7-A(1) of the Act provides for a revision from an appellate order under Section 7 of the Act. On the other hand, Section 7-A(3) which starts with a non-obstante clause makes it abundantly clear that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Collector on his own motion or otherwise can entertain a revision to satisfy himself with regard to the correctness/legality and propriety of any order passed by any authority subordinate to him and that such order was not passed under a mistake of fact or owing to fraud or misrepresentation or on account of material irregularity of procedure. Section 7 (A) 3 of the Act (as it stood before amendment made in the year 2013) provided for a limitation of 14 years for exercise of such power. Admittedly, the petitioner had not filed any appeal against the order under Annexurre-3. Thus, provision under Section 7-A (1) of the Act is not applicable to case at hand. The Opposite Party No.1 had essentially exercised his jurisdiction under Section 7-A(3) of the Act for satisfying himself with regard to settlement of the land in favour of the Opposite Party No. 3 on lease. The said order was passed by the Opposite Party No.2 under Section 3 of the Act. 7. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is not sustainable. Further, the contention of Mr. Mohanty, that the Opposite Party No.3 was not a landless person requires a factual adjudication. The said order was passed by the Opposite Party No.2 under Section 3 of the Act. 7. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is not sustainable. Further, the contention of Mr. Mohanty, that the Opposite Party No.3 was not a landless person requires a factual adjudication. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order under Annexure-3 and remit the matter back to the Additional District Magistrate, Kendrapara for de novo adjudication giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 8. This writ petition is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances, no order as to costs. Vinod Prasad, J. I agree.