JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This Writ Petition has been filed assailing the order dated 28.01.1994 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Consolidation, Cuttack in Consolidation Revision No. 244 of 1997 appearing at Annexure-3. 2. Short back ground involved in the case is that the land in village-Bichitrapur pertaining to C.S. Plot No.615 measuring an area A0.11 decimals and CS plot No.1257 measuring an area Ao.22 decimals under C.S. Khata No.95 belonged to one Gokhani Bewa. Land vide C.S. Plot No.615, measuring Ao.11 decimals with Kisam-Gharabari was sold by Gokhani Bewa to Krushna Chandra Barik (the father of the present petitioner) vide an unregistered sale deed dated 19.6.1933 at a sale price of Rs.42/-(Rupees Forty two).The petitioner being the sole successor of his father remained in possession of the aforesaid plot and resided there by constructing a residential house thereon. The Opp. party No.5-Shantilata Barik somehow managed to get her name recorded in respect of C.S. Plot No.615 in absence of any notice to the petitioner. Consequent upon commencement of consolidation operation, a publication to that effect was made in the locality. The petitioner preferred an Objection Case bearing No. 3756 of 1993 praying therein to change the land record to his name involving the Opp. party No.5. Opp. party No.5 filed her objection contending that petitioner was never in possession over the suit C.S. Plot No.615. She further alleged that after death of Gokhani -the recorded tenant in respect of C.S. Plot Nos.615 and 1257, Fakira being her only son and after death of Fakira, his wife-Nandi became the exclusive owner of the said two plots. In the process, Nandi sold Ao.11 decimals of land out of C.S. Plot No.1257 and entire Ao.11 decimals in plot No.615, total-Ao.22 decimals to one Jamuna Bewa -wife of Kanduri Jena by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 05.3.1954. Jamuna in turn gifted the said land to Bhikari Rout and Sanatan Rout-sons of Ekadasi Rout vide registered gift deed dated 21.3.1961,who thereafter alienated the said land in favour of Shanti lata Barik (Opp.party No.5) -daughter of Sukadeb Barik vide registered sale deed No.2433 dated 17.3.1967. It was contended by Opp. Jamuna in turn gifted the said land to Bhikari Rout and Sanatan Rout-sons of Ekadasi Rout vide registered gift deed dated 21.3.1961,who thereafter alienated the said land in favour of Shanti lata Barik (Opp.party No.5) -daughter of Sukadeb Barik vide registered sale deed No.2433 dated 17.3.1967. It was contended by Opp. party No.5 that Bhikari and Sanatan sold the property to Narayan Mohanty but in the sale deed instead of indicating C.S. Plot No.615, Bhikari and Sanatan inadvertently mentioned the C.S. Plot No.1257 which mistake continued and thus there may be an inadvertent confusion in respect of mentioning of plot number. It is claimed that when Narayan Mohanty sold to Opp. party No.5, the sale deed contained not only the boundary description of plot No.615 but delivery of possession in respect of land vide C.S. Plot No.615 was also given to Narayan. Thus, Opp. party No.5 claimed that the sale by Narayan to the Opp. party No.5 in fact the property involving C.S. Plot No.615 and therefore it is claimed by Opp. party No.5 that the recording in the R.O.R has been rightly made on the basis of the sale deed. In the Objection case, an inquiry was conducted by deputing an Amin to have an enquiry on spot in presence of both parties. The Amin after due enquiry involving the parties reported that the petitioner is in possession of the C.S. Plot No.615 measuring Ao.11 decimals. But however the Objection case was rejected on the ground that the sale deed under which petitioner’s father had purchased the land, being an unregistered sale deed, no right conferred upon the petitioner on the basis of such invalid sale deed and the suit land being purchased by Opp. party No.5 through a registered sale deed and her name being recorded as the land owner in the Mutation proceeding, she was declared to be the rightful owner. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, petitioner preferred an appeal which was registered as Appeal Case No.02 of 1996.This appeal was decided finally holding that the transfer of the disputed property in favour of the father of the petitioner being for consideration of Rs.42/-in the year 1932 remaining less than Rs.100/-, no registration of such document was necessary and thus entering into such transaction by virtue of an unregistered sale deed, was valid. Consequently while holding the sale deed as valid, the appellate authority also came to hold that there has been delivery of possession of the property to the father of the petitioner in the year 1937 and after observing that the sale by Bhikari and Sanatan to Narayan concerning C.S. Plot No.615 is invalid held that the transaction was not only illegal further there was no scope for delivery of possession in favour of Opp. party No.5 at any point of time. It was also held therein that the recording in a Mutation proceeding can neither create right nor extinguish right in favour of the Opp. party No.5. In the process, the Appeal was allowed in favour of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, Opp. party No.5 preferred Consolidation Revision No.244 of 1997. The Revisional court while confirming the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, sets aside the order passed by the Appellate authority, thereby allowing the Revision in favour of the Opp. party No.5. 3. In assailing the order passed by the original authority being merged in the revisional order, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the sale in favour of the petitioner’s father in respect of C.S. Plot No.615 taken place in the year 1933 for a value of Rs.42/-and physical possession of the said plot being delivered in favour of his father, there was no scope for sale of the self same land any further. The sale in favour of Narayan and the subsequent sale of the disputed land by Narayan in favour of Opp. party No.5 concerning C.S. Plot No.615 having no right, title, interest and possession, the transfer becomes invalid. Mr. Mohanty further contended that the plea of Opp. party No.5 that even though the sale deed initially in favour of Bhikari and Sanatan indicated sale of C.S. Plot No.1257 and such mistake was continuing till the execution of sale deed by Narayan in favour of Opp.party No.5 having no basis, could not have been accepted either by original authority in the Objection case or by the Revisional authority in absence of an amendment to the registered sale deeds. It is in these premises, Mr.Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the Original authority in Objection case as well as the Revisional authority in Revision case remain unsupportive and thus should be interfered with and set aside. 4. Mr. S.Mantri, learned counsel appearing for the private Opp. Party Nos.5 to 8 in his opposition to the submissions of Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Opp. party No.5 has a clear case all through that petitioner was never in possession of the suit land. Gokhani being the recorded owner in respect of both the C.S. plot Nos.615 and 1257, Fakira being the only son of Gokhani inherited the same after the death of Gokhani and on the death of Fakira, his wife-Nandi became the exclusive owner in possession of the suit land, who sold Ao.11 decimals out of plot No.1257 and entire Ao.11 decimals land in plot No.615 to one Jamuna Bewa vide registered sale deed dated 05.3.1954. Jamuna gifted the entire Ao.22 decimals of land in favour of Bhikari and Sanatan vide registered Gift deed in the year 1961. Subsequently Bhikari and Sanatan have purchased the balance land also. It is the further case of Opp. party No.5 that Narayan being son of Musei Mohanty purchased Ao.11 decimals of land out of C.S. Plot No.1257 from Bhikari and Sanatan by way of registered sale deed in the year 1964. Narayan alienated the said land in favour of Shantilata Barik -Opp. party No.5 vide registered sale deed dated 17.3.1967 and delivered physical possession of the disputed land in her favour and since then Opp.party No.5 became the owner of the disputed property. It is further contended by Mr. Mantri that there was an inadvertent mistake in the sale deed that Bhikari and Sanatan sold the property to Narayan indicating C.S Plot No.1257 instead of C.S Plot No.615 therein which mistake also continued till the property was subsequently sold in favour of Opp. party No.5. It is in these premises and on the premises that the land already stood recorded in the name of Opp. party No.5 vide Mutation proceeding, there is no mistake on the part of the original authority or the revisional authority in passing the impugned order. Therefore, there is no scope for interference in either of the impugned orders. 5. Mr. It is in these premises and on the premises that the land already stood recorded in the name of Opp. party No.5 vide Mutation proceeding, there is no mistake on the part of the original authority or the revisional authority in passing the impugned order. Therefore, there is no scope for interference in either of the impugned orders. 5. Mr. K.K.Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opp. parties on the other hand supporting the stand of Mr. Mantri, learned counsel for the Opp. party Nos. 5 to 8 contended that there is no illegality or impropriety in the revisional order, leaving any scope for interfering in the impugned revisional order. 6. From the pleadings of the respective parties and on perusal of the documents appended therein, this Court finds no dispute with regard to original recorded owner of the C.S. Plot Nos.615 and 1257 measuring an area Ao.11 decimals and Ao.22 decimals respectively belonged to Gokhani Bewa. While Gokhani was owner in possession over Ao.11 decimals of land in C.S Plot No.615 sold the same to the father of the petitioner through an unregistered sale deed dated 19.6.1933 at a sale price of Rs.42/-.This being the specific case of the petitioner, this Court finds the case of Opp. party No.5 is that after death of Gokhani, her only son-Fakira inherited all the properties of Gokhani should be confined to Ac.0.22 decimals from C.S.Plot No.1257. After death of Fakira, his wife-Nandi became the exclusive owner in possession of the disputed property, in the mean while Nandi sold Ao.11 decimals each out of C.S. Plot Nos.615 and 1257 to one Jamuna through Regd. sale deed dated 05.3.1954 and then Jamuna gifted the said land in favour of Bhikari and Sanatan by way of Regd. Gift Deed in the year 1961 who have also purchased rest of the property from Jamuna. In the mean time, Narayan purchased Ao.11 decimals of land from C.S. Plot No.1257 from Bhikari and Sanatan who subsequently alienated this Ao.11 decimals land from C.S plot No.1257 in favour of Shantilata -Opp. party No.5. From the above narration, this court finds there is no dispute that Gokhani was the original recorded land owner. In the mean time, Narayan purchased Ao.11 decimals of land from C.S. Plot No.1257 from Bhikari and Sanatan who subsequently alienated this Ao.11 decimals land from C.S plot No.1257 in favour of Shantilata -Opp. party No.5. From the above narration, this court finds there is no dispute that Gokhani was the original recorded land owner. There is also no dispute with regard to the claim of the petitioner that his father had purchased the land measuring Ao.11 decimals in C.S plot No.615 by way of an unregistered sale deed dated 19.6.1933 and after sale of this land, there remained land with Gokhani all involving C.S. Plot No.1257. 7. From the above narrations, it is now it is to be seen as to whether the sale deed executed by Gokhani in favour of the father of petitioner is valid or not ? and secondly if it is valid, then whether any land belonging to C.S. Plot No.615 yet remained to be sold subsequently by Nandi to Jamuna in the year 1954 ? 8. Now coming to examine the first question, this Court finds that there is no dispute that there existed an unregistered sale deed involving Ao.11 decimals of land pertaining to C.S. Plot No.615 executed by Gokhani Bewa, the original land owner in favour of the father of the petitioner. There is also no dispute that the sale transaction was entered into at a price of Rs.42/-.The sale price being under Rs.100/-there is no doubt that sale deed did not require registration and that the unregistered sale deed was valid. Since the unregistered sale deed remain valid and as the materials disclosed that the petitioner’s possession over the disputed property being objected, the original authority in the Objection case conducted an inquiry through an Amin and the inquiry being conducted in presence of both the sides, a report was filed in the Objection case clearly indicating the possession over the disputed land in favour of the father of petitioner. Therefore, there is not only a valid sale but there is also delivery of possession of the disputed land at the relevant point of time in favour of the father of the petitioner. This being the admitted position, there was no further land available from out of the C.S. Plot No.615 to be dealt with subsequently by the L.R of Gokhani Bewa. Further looking to the specific stand of the Opp. This being the admitted position, there was no further land available from out of the C.S. Plot No.615 to be dealt with subsequently by the L.R of Gokhani Bewa. Further looking to the specific stand of the Opp. party No.5 that the sale transaction of the disputed property through the sale by Nandi till the transaction entered between Narayan and Opp.Party.No.5, there is at least two sale deeds indicating the sale of land measuring Ao.11 out of C.S. Plot No.1257, further looking to the claim of the Opp. party. No.5 that there is indication of sale of land from particular plot in at least two sale deeds referring the sale from out of plot No.1257 which is claimed to be an inadvertent one instead of mentioning it to be C.S. Plot No.615, this plea of Opp. party No.5 cannot be accepted for the reasons that first of all no land was further available to be sold from out of plot No.615 and secondly in the event there was any inadvertent mistake in the sale deed at the first instance, nothing prevented the parties to go for an amendment of the registered sale deed and within appropriate period of time. 9. The above being the position, this Court finds the observation of the original authority in dismissing the Objection Case as well as the observation of the Revisional authority in reversing the order passed by the Appellate authority, based on no correct appreciation of fact, consequently the order of the original authority as well as the Revisional authority can not be sustained, as a result, while setting aside the Revisional order under Annexure-3, this Court confirms the order passed by the appellate authority under Annexure-2. Writ petition succeeds. Parties to bear their respective cost.