JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the orders vide Annexures-1, 2 & 3 passed by the State Authorities under the Land Reforms Act. 2. The fact as reveals and argued before this Court by the learned senior counsel for petitioners is that in the year 1983 a suo motu proceeding under Section 43 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act was initiated in the name of Smt. Sita Mahanty and was registered as O.L.R.M.C. No.1/83 on the allegation of holding lands surplus to the extent of land required to be held under the Orissa Land Reforms Act. A draft was prepared and objections were also called for. During pendency of the suo motu proceeding vide O.L.R. Misc. Case No.1/1983, an inquiry was conducted by the Revenue Officer involving the petitioner and others. The Revenue Officer submitted the report confirming the petitioners’ holding excess land. The Miscellaneous Case No.1/1983 was heard and decided on merit holding that the since petitioners were holding the land in excess, therefore, was allowed 16.17 Acres of land and balance 12.430 Acres. of land declared as surplus 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Original Authority, the petitioners preferred appeal. This appeal was decided on contest confirming the observation of the Original Authority holding the petitioner held surplus land but the appeal was turned down however, providing an opportunity to the petitioner to have option for particular patch of land as a matter of her choice. Challenging the order of the appellate authority under Annexure-2, the petitioners preferred O.L.R. Revision No.1/1989. The Revisional Authority also decided the matter on contest and while dismissing the revision, upheld the orders of Appellate Authority as well as the Original Authority. 4. In assailing the impugned orders, the petitioners have taken several grounds in as much as there being no proper inquiry by the Revenue Officer, the status of land in all the three villages not remaining in consonance with the actual status and land belonging to the outsiders having been included showing belonging to the petitioners. Considering the rival contentions, this Court finds all these grounds were very much available before the Original Authority and from the findings of the Original Authority, it appears that the petitioners failed to satisfy their case either before the Original Authority or before the Appellate Authority or even before the Revisional Authority. Considering the rival contentions, this Court finds all these grounds were very much available before the Original Authority and from the findings of the Original Authority, it appears that the petitioners failed to satisfy their case either before the Original Authority or before the Appellate Authority or even before the Revisional Authority. The Original Authority being confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority, this Court finds no scope to interfere in the impugned orders in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed for having no merit. Parties to bear their own cost.