JUDGMENT BISWANATH RATH, J. - This writ application has been filed assailing the orders passed by the Consolidation Authority under Annexures-4 & 5 in the matter of rejection of an objection at the instance of the petitioners for correction of record based on an order passed by the Revenue Authority. 2.Notice on O.P. 7 stands ignored in view of appearance of O.Ps. 3 to 6, who are all brothers of O.P.7. 3.Short fact involved in the case is that the suit land situates in Mouza-Sudangi under Chikiti Tahasil and recorded in the name of the father of the petitioner in the settlement record. After death of his father, the petitioner being the son succeeded the properties. While the petitioner was in possession of the said land, one Parsuram Panigrahi unauthorisedly occupied the disputed land resulting the petitioner approaching the O.L.R. Authority under Section 23-A of the O.L.R. Act for restoration of the land, vide O.L.R. Case No. 6/1988. This matter was decided in favour of the petitioner, vide Annexure-1 directing eviction of said Parsuram Panigrahi. Consequently, the Tahasildar also delivered the possession of the suit land to the petitioner. As against the order of the Revenue Authority under Annexure-1, the mother of O.Ps. 3 to 7 filed O.L.R. Case No. 4/1922, which was also dismissed on 28.7.1993 thereby confirming the possession of the petitioner over the suit land. Challenging the order passed in O.L.R. Case No. 4/1992, appeal was preferred by the mother of O.Ps. 3 to7, registered as O.L.R. Appeal No. 4/1993, which was also dismissed on 23.7.1994. it is at this point of time in 1999, the petitioner finding that there is a wrong recording of the name of the plot owner in the land records filed objection case No. 189/1997 for correction of the records taking help of the order passed in O.L.R. Case No. 6/1988 and O.L.R. Appeal No. 4/1993. The said Objection Case was dismissed. The revision at the instance of the petitioner was also dismissed on the ground that the orders passed by the revenue authority are not binding on the Consolidation Authority. 4.Assailing the impugned orders, Mr. The said Objection Case was dismissed. The revision at the instance of the petitioner was also dismissed on the ground that the orders passed by the revenue authority are not binding on the Consolidation Authority. 4.Assailing the impugned orders, Mr. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the observations and the findings arrived at by both the original authority as well as the revisional authority are not only contrary to the decision already held by the revenue authority but both the Courts are also wrong in holding that the orders passed by the revenue authorities are not binding on the Consolidation Authorities. Citing a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Harekrushna Samal & Others vrs. Kashi Mallik & Others, reported in 1996 (II) OLR-341 (para-13), Sri Choudhury, learned Counsel, submitted that this case has the full support of the Full Bench decision. 5.On the contrary, Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for O.Ps. 3 to 7, supporting the orders of the original authority as well as the revenue authority submitted that the authorities below have not committed any illegality by taking an independent view on their own. 6.Learned Additional Government Advocate also supported the submission of Sri G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for O.Ps. 3 to 7. 7.Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 8.This Court finds, there is no denial to the fact that ;the decision by the revenue authority in exercise of power under Section 23-A of O.L.R. Act involving O.L.R. Case No. 6/1988 and the consequential decision by the appellate authority in O.L.R. Appeal No. 4/1993. There is also no denial to the fact that the attempt at the instance of the mother of O.Ps. 3 to 7 has also failed as the O.L.R. Case at their instance was dismissed by the competent authority. 9.Looking to the observations and findings of the original authority as well as the revisional authority, the moot question now to be decided is as to whether the authorities under the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act are bound by the decision passed by the revenue authorities in exercise of their power under the O.L.R. Act? 9.Looking to the observations and findings of the original authority as well as the revisional authority, the moot question now to be decided is as to whether the authorities under the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act are bound by the decision passed by the revenue authorities in exercise of their power under the O.L.R. Act? Scan of the decisions cited at Bar in the case of Harekrushna Samal (supra), particularly keeping in view the observations of the full Bench in paragraph-13 of the said decision, this Court finds, the decision of the full Bench holding the decisions of the revenue authorities have a binding effect on the consolidation authorities. 10.This Court finds force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Consequently, while holding the observations and findings of the original authority in the orders under Annexures-4 & 5 as bad, this Court sets aside both the orders under Annexures-4 & 5. The writ application succeeds. Parties to bear their own cost. Petition succeeds.