JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This Writ Petition has been filed assailing the final order dated 27.11.1996 passed by the Opp. party No.1-Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Orissa, Cuttack in R.P. Case No.2011 of 1996 and R.P. Case No.2012 of 1996. 2. Succinctly stated the case of the petitioner is that Hal Plot No.29 measuring an area Ao.54 decimals under Hal Khata No.70 (suit land in R.P.No.2011/1996) corresponding to Sabik plot No.34 under Sabik Khata No.38 measuring an area Ao.54 decimals stood recorded in the names of Bansidhar Panda, Kelu Panda, Nidhi Panda-all sons of Chanduri Panda with 12 annas share and Sukuti Panda, Chemei Panda-both sons of Baidhar Panda with 4 annas share in the 1928 R.O.R. Similarly in the 1928 R.O.R, fourteen Hal plots under Hal Khata No.69 (suit plots in R.P.No.2012 of 1996) measuring total area A.3.32 decimals relate to Sabik Khata Nos.15, 14 and 38 stood recorded in the names of Bansidhar Panda, Nidhi Panda, Kelu Panda – all sons of Chanduri Panda. Out of Ao.54 decimals in Hal Plot No.29 corresponding to Sabik plot No.24 Bansidhar, Kelu and Nidhi were jointly possessing 12 annas share. After their death, petitioners being the successors / legal heirs are in joint possession of the aforesaid 12 annas share and claiming to be in enjoyment of the said property peacefully. Similarly in fourteen Hal plots under Hal Khata No.69 corresponding to Sabik Khata Nos.14, 15, 38 measuring A.3.32 decimals, Bansidhar Panda, Kelu Panda and Nidhi Panda were jointly enjoying being in joint possession. After their death, the petitioners being successors/legal heirs are in joint possession and possessing peacefully. This status continued till 1995, in which year during settlement operation, the Opp. party Nos.3 and 4 appearing before the Assistant Settlement Officer claimed themselves to be the legal heirs of one Chakradhar Panda being grand-sons. Recording oral statements of these parties, the Assistant Settlement Officer directed inclusion of legal heirs of Chakradhar Panda in the Hal R.O.R. Consequently the R.O.R including the names of Opp. party Nos.3 and 4 was published on 02.3.1996. It is at this point of time, the petitioners objecting to such inclusion, filed the aforesaid two R.P. Cases under Section 15 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958. The Revision petitions have been dismissed against the petitioners. party Nos.3 and 4 was published on 02.3.1996. It is at this point of time, the petitioners objecting to such inclusion, filed the aforesaid two R.P. Cases under Section 15 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958. The Revision petitions have been dismissed against the petitioners. Assailing the impugned orders in the aforesaid two R. P. cases decided in a common judgment, the petitioners claimed that there is a dispute with regard to claim of Opp. party Nos.3 and 4 being the legal heirs of Chanduri Panda through Chakradhar Panda. Further since the original R.O.R did not include the name of ancestors of Opp. party Nos.3 and 4 and the said R.O.R having not been challenged till 1996, the Hal R.O.R was published, rejection of the case of the petitioners in their revisions in absence of their above contentions, is illegal and therefore the petitioners claimed for interference in the order impugned herein and for setting aside the same. Petitioners also pleaded that the claim of the Opp. party Nos.3 and 4 on the basis of some amicable settlement involving allotment of four annas share, has also no foundation. Besides the evidence recorded during settlement proceeding being not clear, the findings and the conclusion arrived by the Revisional authority, also becomes wrong. 3. While the matter was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the private Opp. parties although a set of learned counsels already entered their appearance for them by filing Vakalatnama. 4. Mr. K.K.Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate refuting the contentions raised by Mr. Pani, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in view of clear and cogent observation and findings of the revisional authority, there is no scope for interference in the order impugned herein. Mr. Mishra further contended that the writ petition is based on suppression of material facts, for which the writ petition should be dismissed on this score. 5. Considering the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court finds there is no dispute with regard to involvement of the parties in the particular R.P. Case Nos.2011 and 2012 of 1996. While going through the revisional orders impugned herein, this Court finds that in a previous attempt, considering the objection of the present petitioners that the present private Opp. While going through the revisional orders impugned herein, this Court finds that in a previous attempt, considering the objection of the present petitioners that the present private Opp. parties are strangers to their family, the Assistant Settlement Officer during Settlement operation after holding due enquiry came to conclusion that Chakdradhar Panda was one of the sons of late Chanduru Panda being the common ancestor of both the parties and consequently the Assistant Settlement Officer after due enquiry had directed for inclusion of the names of the private Opp. parties. Against such recording, the petitioners preferred two Appeals bearing Nos.1437 of 1994 and 1438 of 1994 involving the properties in both the R.P.Nos.2011 and 2012 of 1996 .Both the Appeals were dismissed upholding the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer. There has been no further challenge to the orders initially passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer and by the appellate authorities. Hence the findings therein remain confirmed and conclusive against the present petitioners and under the circumstances the petitioners were not entitled to bring the matter again to the Revisional court under Section 15 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act. Further for the observation and findings during preparation of Hal Settlement R.O.R and in the Appeals, nothing also survives to reopen the case of the petitioners challenging the status of the private Opp. parties. Consequently this Court holds, the Revisional Authority did no wrong in dismissing the revision. 6. Under the circumstances, this Court while declining to interfere in the impugned order under Annexure-1, dismissed the Writ petition for having no merit. Parties to bear their respective cost.