JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. In this writ application the petitioners have assailed the order dated 27.3.1991 passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation, Bhubaneswar in Revision Case No.374/1987 under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972, vide Annexure-3. 2. Short background involved in this case is that on 21.3.1939 the original owner sold the disputed land by way of registered sale deed no.945 dated 21.3.1939 to Mahani Dei, wife of Balaram Singh. Mahani Dei subsequently sold the disputed land to Mani Dei, second wife of Jagabandhu, vide registered sale deed no.3485 dated 15.11.1950 (Ext.3). It is pleaded that Mani Dei on purchase of the land from Mahani Dei mutated her name in the tahasil record and went on paying rent to the State. In establishing his case, the petitioner in the objection case exhibited the documents, the order passed in mutation case as well as the rent receipts, vide Exts. III, III(A) and III(B). Pleadings of the parties further disclose that Mani Dei, who purchased the land vide registered sale deed dated 15.11.1950, died issueless thereby devolving right over the property purchased in 1950 on the sole survivor of Parvati Dei, daughter of Manik, first wife of Jagabandhu. Said Parvati, being the owner of the land on succession, sold the land to the extent of A.0.18 decimals to Chaturbhuj Malick, the predecessor of the present petitioners by way of registered sale deed dated 16.7.1974. After the sale by way of registered sale deed, the original writ petitioner, Chaturbhuj Malick by virtue of above sale deed, during consolidation operation, filed Objection Case No.4319/1982 for recording his name in respect of A.0.18 decimals of land on the guise of purchase from the rightful owner. Pending decision on the Objection Case No.4319/1982, O.P.1, Debaraj Kandi filed another objection case before the Consolidation Officer registered as Objection Case No. 4369/1982 for recording his name in respect of A.0.20 decimals of land on plot no.1157 for having purchased the same vide registered sale deed dated 30.4.1974 from one Batua Singh alleged to be the adopted son of Balaram and Mahani Dei. In filing the Objection Case, Debaraj Kandi also pleaded that the sale deed dated 15.11.1950 having been cancelled subsequently, transaction if any, was taken place in between by Mahani, are all invalid. There also appears a third Objection Case No.4412/1983 at the instance of Parvati Dei. In filing the Objection Case, Debaraj Kandi also pleaded that the sale deed dated 15.11.1950 having been cancelled subsequently, transaction if any, was taken place in between by Mahani, are all invalid. There also appears a third Objection Case No.4412/1983 at the instance of Parvati Dei. The original authority thereby partly allowing the Objection Case No.4412/1983 as well as Objection Case No.4319/1982, while disallowed the claim in Objection Case No. 4639/1982. 3. Taking into considering the rival contentions of the parties both the Objection Cases were disposed of, vide Annexure-1 thereby while allowing the same at the instance of the original writ petitioner, the mutation case at the instance of Debaraj Kandi was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the order of the original authority, Debaraj Kandi, O.P.1 filed an appeal registered as Appeal Case No.96/1986 challenging the order involving Objection Case No.4412/1983. This appeal was heard on merit and decided by the final order under Annexure-2 thereby dismissing the appeal involving Objection Case No.4412/1983. The revision being registered as Revision Case No.374/1987 on the file of Commissioner, Consolidation, Bhubaneswar, was disposed of ultimately after hearing of the contesting parties by allowing the revision in favour of the O.P.1 thereby reversing the finding of the appellate authority as well as the original authority. 4. In assailing the revisional order, Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners raised the following grounds:- “The law is well settled that the questions which do not necessitate interpretation of the Civil Court for the removal of the obstacle and can be ancillary and incidentally decided and on the resolution of which would depend the decision as to right, title, interest and liability in land are within the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities. Seeking a declaration simipliciter as to legal character as contemplated by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and not within the competence of the Consolidation Authorities. 1991 (I) OLR-29. 1. Seeking a declaration simipliciter as to legal character as contemplated by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and not within the competence of the Consolidation Authorities. 1991 (I) OLR-29. 1. Applying the aforesaid position of law to the factual dispute involved in the present case, it is humbly submitted that the learned Commissioner, Consolidation has committed gross error of law by coming to a conclusion that the Courts below have committed error of law in going to the question of adoption, although, no express relief was prayed for before the Consolidation Authority seeking a declaration that Batua Singh was the adopted son of Mahani Dei; but the title in respect of the disputed property was claimed by Debaraj Kandi who claims to be the purchaser from Batua Singh by taking a plea that Batua Singh was the adopted son of Mahani Dei and Mahani Dei having cancelled the sale deed dtd. 15.11.1950, subsequently, he having acquired title over the disputed land from the adopted son of Mahani Dei. He has acquired the title over the disputed land. Obviously, the nature of the plea taken by the Opposite Party, it is clear that the question of adoption of Batua Singh is an ancillary question raised before the consolidation authority in order to establish the title over the disputed land. Therefore, the consolidation officer as well as the Deputy Director had every jurisdiction to go into the question of adoption. The Revisional Authority without appreciating the position of law in its correct prospective has committed serious error of law by setting aside the orders passed by both the Courts below by recording the aforesaid erroneous finding. 2. The Commissioner has also committed an error of law in holding that the cancellation deed of Mahani in the year 1958 is a valid one, although Section 55(4) (b) of the Transfer of Property Act clearly stipulates that where the ownership of the property has passed to the buyer before payment of the whole of the purchased money, the seller is entitled to the unpaid consideration money with interest and the sale deed cannot be cancelled on that ground. 3. 3. The finding of the Commissioner with regard to the factual dispute is also not sustainable in the eye of law in as much as the Commissioner, Consolidation while recording his finding in this regard has committed serious error of record as well as law which are as follows:- (i) The Commissioner without verifying the record has come to the conclusion that “neither the order passed in the Mutation Case nor any rent receipts of the suit land or any other lands purchased by Mani has been produced by Opposite Party No.1 in support of his claim”. Though the petitioners have exhibited the sale deed exhibited by Mani in their favour as Ext-3 and the order passed by the Mutation Authority under Ext-3/A and the rent receipts under Ext-3/B. The Commissioner while passing the impugned order has over looked these materials available on record and recorded the finding. The Commissioner has also committed gross error of law by recording the finding the cancellation deed executed by Mahani in the year 1958 is valid, although, the same was grossly barred by limitation. Apart from that, the Commissioner having without cogent materials on record has come to the conclusion that the sale deed executed on 15.11.1950 has not been acted upon and as such the aforesaid finding of the Commissioner is thoroughly perverse and based on no evidence.” 5. In his opposition learned counsel appearing for O.P.1, on the other hand, submitted that in view of clear findings as regards the adoption as well as the validity of the sale deed of the year 1950, the revisional authority did no wrong in allowing the revision thereby reversing the judgments of the courts below. 6. Learned Additional Standing Counsel while supporting the case of the opposite parties contended that in view of the reasons assigned by the revisional authority, the judgment in the revision does not stand to scrutiny thereby leaving no scope for interference of this Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 8. Considering the respective submissions and the contentions raised during course of argument, this Court after perusal of the order passed under Annexure-1 in the Objection Case finds that there are three sets of Objection Cases filed by three respective parties. 7. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 8. Considering the respective submissions and the contentions raised during course of argument, this Court after perusal of the order passed under Annexure-1 in the Objection Case finds that there are three sets of Objection Cases filed by three respective parties. One Objection Case No.4319/1982 at the instance of Chaturbhuj Malik, the original writ petitioner, other Objection Case No.4369/1982 at the instance of Debaraj Kandi, present O.P.1 and another Objection Case No.4412/1983 at the instance of Parvati Devi. From perusal of the order vide Annexure-1, this Court finds that the original authority while deciding all the three Objection Cases by judgments, partly allowed the claim in Objection Case No.4412/1983 and Objection Case No.4319/1982 and disallowed the claim in Objection Case No.4369/1982. Further this Court finds that the original authority taking into two moot questions for consideration as to whether the registered sale deed dated 15.11.1950 remained valid for the reasons of its cancellation in the year 1958 as claimed by O.P.1 through his Objection Case? and secondly since the claim of O.P.1 rests on adoption by the land owner to the O.P.1, whether the claim of the objector in the third case could have been allowed on the basis of adoption, if the adoption is valid. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the original authority made the following observations:- “In the recital in the sale deed dated 15.11.1950 with clear indication that the transfer in favour of Mani is an absolute sale and the recital in the sale deed shows that from the date of sale, Mahani lost all her claim over the suit land. Further Parvati being the successor of Mani having transferred the suit property in favour of the objector, Chaturbhuj Mallik in the year 1974, which further being established by virtue of documents, vide Exts. III, III (A) & III(B). Therefore, the original authority found a clear case in favour of the present petitioners.” 9. So far as the question of adoption is concerned, the original authority considering the rival contentions of the parties appears disbelieving the adoption and further for his findings on the validity of the sale deed, the Objection Cases were closed with a clear finding that the registered sale deed dated 15.11.1950 remained valid and transaction in favour of Chaturbhuj Malik also remained alive. This finding of the original authority has been confirmed by the appellate authority. 10. Taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties in respect of the order passed by the revisional authority, this Court finds that the revisional authority has reversed the order of both the courts below primarily on two counts : (1) the lower authorities should not have gone into the question of adoption being beyond the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act and (2) for the information available through the not final settlement of record, 1962, which still contained the name of Mahani as the land owner as well as the cancellation of the sale deed dated 15.11.1950 by virtue of a cancellation deed in the year 1958, the revisional authority already found the order of both the courts as illegal, as they were exceeding their jurisdiction under the Act. On scrutiny of the order of the revisional authority, this Court finds that the revision was filed as against a concurrent finding of fact on the question of possession as well as the validity of the sale deed dated 15.11.1950 in absence of any perversity or any finding contrary to the law, the revisional authority had no scope to enquire as such. 11. Now coming to the question of adoption decided by the consolidation authorities referring to the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sahu, in the case of Jairam Samantray vrs. Baikuntha Samantaray & Others, reported in 1991(I) OLR-29, this Court finds from paragraphs-6 & 7 that even though a Division Bench of this Court came to hold that the question of adoption being ancillary to the question of declaration of right, title and interest, the authorities under the Consolidation Act have the jurisdiction to get into such question, yet have made an observation that assuming the consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to decide the question of adoption and the Commissioner has sustained the plea of adoption and in such event, the best course should have been to leave the issue involving the parties for decision of the appropriate court and not to have decided the question of title at all. In view of concurrent finding of fact on the question of adoption in favour of Batua Singh, this aspect should not have been touched. In view of concurrent finding of fact on the question of adoption in favour of Batua Singh, this aspect should not have been touched. The revisional authority’s observation and finding in favour of the petitioners being based on such disputed question of fact, the decision of the revisional authority is also otherwise not sustainable. Looking to the further observations of the revisional authority, this Court observes that its findings also based on extraneous materials, particularly the not final record of 1962, as it was nobody’s case all through either in the objection case or the appellate authority, such material was thus not available for being considered by the revisional authority. 12. For the reasons assigned and the finding arrived here in above, the revisional order under Annexure-3 is unsustainable in the eye of law and the same is set aside. 13. The writ application stands allowed. Parties have to bear their own cost.