JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This writ application has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 22.1.1993 passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation, Cuttack in Consolidation Revision No.727 of 1989 under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (in short, “the Act”), vide Annexure-7. 2. In assailing the impugned order, Mr. Routray, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, drawing this Court’s attention to the chaka map at Annexure-1, contended that the petitioners’ interest rests on plot no.98 whereas O.P.3’s interest rests on plot no.97. In the matter of re-alignment of the chaka, O.P.3 raised Objection Case No. 3496/ 404 before the competent authority and the competent authority, while deciding the said case, observed that the land for re-alignment in sector-24 cannot be shifted to chaka no.97, which remains in sector no.3, for which the re-alignment is impermissible. Mr. Routray also alleged that in spite of clear observation by the competent authority that such transfer of land will create difficulty for many other land owners, but however, while disposing the objection case along with some other objection cases, the Consolidation Officer at the end of the order observed accepting the claim made by the objector. Sri Routray further contended that the final direction remains contrary to the observation of the Consolidation Officer, mainly in relation to Objection Case No. 3496/404 but unfortunately on the basis of such erroneous and uncalled for conclusion by the Consolidation Officer, a portion of the land of the petitioners vide plot no.98 has been illegally alienated in favour of O.P.3 in preparing the not final maps, vide Annexures-3 & 4. 3. Thus, being aggrieved by the order of the authorities in taking away a portion of the land of the petitioners erroneously leading to final conclusion made by the Consolidation Officer, the petitioners filed Objection Case No.3275/183 before the Consolidation Officer, who by order dated 11.8.1988 allowed the claim of the petitioners partly which being assailed before the revisional authority and the said revision was dismissed as per the judgment, vide Annexure-7. In assailing the revisional order, Mr. In assailing the revisional order, Mr. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that since the revision has been dismissed solely on the ground of not making CADA, known as Command Area Development Authority, as party, there was no scope for consideration of the case of the petitioners and in the interest of justice instead of dismissing the revision on mere technicality, the petitioners could have been asked for making the CADA as a party to the proceeding and the proceeding could have been decided finally and concluded after providing opportunity of hearing to the CADA. In his opposition, Mr. Dagara, learned counsel for O.Ps.2 to 4, while objecting the challenge to the final order of the revision, looking to the provisions contained in Section 37(1) of the Act, contended that the revision is not maintainable, as the remedy for the petitioners was available under Section 36 of the O.L.R. Act. On perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that no such objection was raised by these opposite parties in the revisional court, for which this Court finds no scope for considering any such objection at this stage and the same is kept open and if raised be considered by the revisional authority. 4. Mr. Pani, learned Additional Standing Counsel in opposition to the claim of the petitioners while justifying the impugned order submitted that the revision case could not been decided in absence of CADA, who had a definite say in the matter of alignment of the land in the particular area and therefore, there is no illegality committed by the revisional court in dismissing the revision for non-joinder of party. 5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, on perusal of the observations made in the Objection Case and the finding therein, this Court finds that for the wrong committed in the earlier objection case, the petitioners have a justified claim to raise objection to the not final maps under Annexures-3 & 4, for which they have all right to agitate the dispute by way of revision under Section 37(1) of the Act. Be that as it may, looking to the observations of the revisional authority for involvement of the CADA and if the matter could not have been decided in absence of the CADA, as a party to the proceeding, the revisional authority instead of dismissing the matter for non-joinder of appropriate party could have given an opportunity to the petitioners to make the CADA as a party and decided the matter on merit. In such view of the matter, this Court while interfering with the impugned order, vide Annexure-7 sets aside the same and remits the matter back to the revisional authority for re-consideration of the revision case. As a consequence of remand and finding that the CADA is an appropriate party to the revision proceeding, this Court permits the petitioners to file an application before the revisional authority for making the CADA as one of the opposite parties. The application be filed within two weeks from the date of this order. On filing such an application, the same shall be allowed by the revisional authority and the CADA will be issued notice directing it for filing objection within a period of three weeks. Considering that the revision case is pending since 1989, the revisional authority is also directed to dispose of the revision finally after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned within a period of two months thereafter. Since the matter is decided in presence of the contesting opposite parties, this Court also expects cooperation of both the parties before the revisional authority for timely disposal of the revision case. 6. The writ application stands disposed of with the above direction. Parties have to bear their own cost.