JUDGMENT BISWANATH RATH, J. - In filing this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the orders under Annexures-4, 6 & 7. 2.In assailing the impugned orders, particularly, in respect of the orders under Annexures-6 & 7, Sri Nanda, learned Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently urged that in view of first round of litigation under the O.P.L.E. Act ended in an outcome in the revision at the instance of the petitioner, the second round of proceeding at the instance of the villagers taking resort to the provision under Section 12 (3) of the O.P.L.E. Act as well as the order in appeal following the direction in the revision were not maintainable. The petitioner consequently claimed that the impugned orders under Annexure-6 & 7 are all without jurisdiction as contrary to the provisions of the O.P.L.E. Act, 1972. 3.There is no appearance on behalf of the private opposite parties in spite of the fact that there is already appearance of a set of Counsel on their behalf pursuant to the notice in the writ application. 4.Short background involved in this case is that in the first round of litigation challenging the recording of the name of the petitioner in Annexure-3, as against the disputed plot, a set of people claiming to be the residents of the locality initiated a proceeding, vide Encroachment Appeal No.17/1991 on the file of the Sub-Collector, Jagatsinghpur. This matter, as appears, was finally concluded with an order favouring the present private opposite parties, as appearing at Annexure-4. Being aggrieved by the order in Annexure-4, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 12 (2) of the Act, 1972 registered as Encroachment Revision No.1/1998.This revision was concluded considering the rival contentions of the parties with an order allowing the revision, setting aside the order passed by the appellate authority and confirming the order recording the name of the petitioner in Annexure-3. While the matter stood thus, a set of villagers filed a revision taking resort to Section 12 (3) of the O.P.L.E.Act registered as O.P.L.E. Revision Case No.3/1995.This revision was disposed of by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Cuttack, by Annexure-6 with an order of remand to the revisional authority. Based on the order of remand, the A.D.M., Jgatsinghpur, functioning as the revisional authority, re-opened the Encroachment Revision No.1/1993 and by the final order under Annexure-7, held against the petitioner. Based on the order of remand, the A.D.M., Jgatsinghpur, functioning as the revisional authority, re-opened the Encroachment Revision No.1/1993 and by the final order under Annexure-7, held against the petitioner. In assailing the impugned orders in Annexures-6 & 7, Sri Nanda, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that a revision under Section 12 (2) of the O.P.L.E. Act was disposed of at the first instance favouring the petitioner. This order having not been challenged by any concern in higher forum, the order not only remained final but remaining the order in the revision under Section 12 (2) of the Act, a revision under Section 12 (3) of the Act was not maintainable and thus, a request is being made for setting aside both the orders under Annexures-6 & 7. 5.Sri Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for O.Ps. 1 to 5. defending the orders under Annexures-6 & 7 raised two points; one that the petitioner has not approached the Courts with clean hand, for which the writ application should be dismissed and secondly, the petitioner having not challenged the order of remand passed by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Cuttack, in exercise of power under Section 12 (3) of the O.P.L.E. Act, vide Annexure-6, and surrendering the exercise of the revisional authority is precluded from taking such ground at this level. Sri Dash also contended that the proposition led by the learned Counsel lfor the petitioner is also hit by a decision of this Court in Vol. XLIII (1977) CLT Page-664. 6.Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, there is no denial to the fact that the order passed in the Encroachment Revision No.1/1995, vide Annexure-5, remained unassailed, and therefore, remained confirmed. 7.Now the question remains as to whether the proceeding vide O.P.L.E. Revision Case No.3/1995 is maintainable firstly remaining the order passed in the revision under Section 12 (2) of the Act unchallenged and secondly, if a revision can be filed assailing the order in the revision under Section 12 (2) of the Act and thirdly, if O.P.L.E. Revision Case No.3/1995 is maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Section 12 (3) of the O.P.L.E.Act ? 8.Section 12 (3) of the O.P.L.E.Act reads as follows: “Section 12 (3) – The Revenue Divisional Commissioner having jurisdiction may call for and examine the records of any proceedings under this Act before any officer in which no appeal or revision lies and if such officer appears – (a)to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law ; or (b)to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or (c)while acting in the exercise of his jurisdiction to have contravened some express provision of law affecting the decision on the merits, where such contravention has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice, it may after giving the parties concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard pass such order as it deems fit.” Reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the Revenue Divisional Commissioner having jurisdiction may call for and examine record of any proceeding in the case where no appeal or revision lies and pass the consequential order looking to the niceties indicated therein. 9.Taking into consideration the entire dispute involved in this case, this Court finds, the dispute involved has already got the attention of appeal and revision under the O.P.L.E. Act and the revisional order in exercise of power under Section 12 (2) of the Act has not been challenged by either the State or the private opposite parties, in any higher forum and as such, the order, vide Annexure-5 remained final. Having already availed a revisional remedy, it was not open to the parties to again resort to a revisional remedy taking aid of Section 12 (3) of the O.P.L.E.Act. Looking to the provisions quoted herein above, this Court finds private O.P. had the only option of a writ petition and this Court finds, the second round of litigation in O.P.L.E. Revision Case No.3/1995 was not maintainable .Consequently, the order passed in Annexure-6 is also not maintainable and the order, vide Annexure-7 being an order arising out of the direction in Annexure-6, also becomes bad. 10.Now considering the contentions of Mr. S. Dash, learned State Counsel referring to a decision reported in Vol.XLIII-1977 CLT-665 a decision of the Division Bench in the matter of Chaitan Mohapatra vrs. 10.Now considering the contentions of Mr. S. Dash, learned State Counsel referring to a decision reported in Vol.XLIII-1977 CLT-665 a decision of the Division Bench in the matter of Chaitan Mohapatra vrs. Member, Board of Revenue that the second Revision was very much maintainable in view of the decision rendered by the Division Bench therein, considering the same, this Court finds, there is no question of involvement of two revisions in the said case. The fact available therein discloses that a revision being preferred by the petitioner therein before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner for the first time, by order dated 19.01.1976, the Commissioner returned the petition for its presentation before the competent authority, and when the petitioner placed the revision before the Board of Revenue, the Board of Revenue also returned the same directing the parties to present the case before the competent authority, the R.D.C. Thus, the question involved therein was that whether the revision under Section 12 (3) of the Act lie before the R.D.C. or the Board of Revenue ? For the ratio made therein involving particular fact therein, the Division Bench held that it is the Board of Revenue and not the Revenue Divisional Commissioner has the jurisdiction to deal with the revision under Section 12 (3) of the Act. Above is not the case here. The case at hand involves as to whether after availing the revisional remedy under Section 12 (2) of the O.L.R. Act, if parties to the proceeding still have a right to carry a revision under Section 12 (3) of the O.L.R. Act ? Thus, the decision cited by Mr. Dash is clearly distinguishable and in applicable to the present case. Under the circumstances, this Court finds, both the impugned orders challenged herein above and Annexures-6 & 7 are not sustainable in the eye of law and while setting aside both the orders, vide Annexures-6 & 7, this Court restores the order vide Annexure-5. This writ application stands allowed. Parties to bear their respective cost. Application allowed.