JUDGMENT BISWANATH RATH, J. - In filing this writ petition, the petitioner and subsequently, the legal heirs of the sole petitioner assails the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Cuttack in O.L.R. Case No. 3 of 1996 with a prayer to quash the order under Annexure-6 to this petition and also to confirm the order passed under Annexure-4 & 5 to this petition. 2. Short background involved in the case is that late Choudhury Balaram Dash and late Choudhury Janardan Dash belongs to a famous Jamidar family of Bhingarpur Choudhury family and the original petitioner was cultivating the disputed land as Bhag Tenant. The original petitioner in the year 1975 filed an application under Section 36(A) of the O.L.R. Act vide O.L.R. Case No. 205 of 1975 before the Revenue Officer, Niali for resumption of the land declaring him as a Raiyat. Much after filing of the O.L.R. Case by the petitioner, the opposite party nos. 4& 5 filed an application under Section 36(A) of the O.L.R. Act for the selfsame land against late Choudhury Balaram Dash and late Janardan Dash vide O.L.R. Case No. 84 of 1976 for declaring them also as Raiyat. Instead of hearing both the cases analogously , the opposite party No. 3 in absence of consideration of the case of the original petitioner, took up the O.L.R. proceeding at the instance of the opposite party Nos. 4 & 5 and decided the O.L.R. Case No. 84 of 1976 declaring the opposite party Nos. 4 & 5 to be the Raiyat relating to the case land. Following the order passed in O.L.R. Case No. 84 of 1976, the authority simply rejected the case of the petitioner involving O.L.R. Case No.205 of 1975. Two appeals were preferred by the petitioners one is O.L.R. Appeal No. 525 of 1976 relating to O.L.R. Case No. 205 of 1975 and the other is O.L.R. Appeal No. 161 of 1978 relating to O.L.R. Case No. 84 of 1976. Two appeals were preferred by the petitioners one is O.L.R. Appeal No. 525 of 1976 relating to O.L.R. Case No. 205 of 1975 and the other is O.L.R. Appeal No. 161 of 1978 relating to O.L.R. Case No. 84 of 1976. The appellate authority heard both the matters analogously and by a common order dated 20.10.1978 while setting aside both the orders, the appellate authority also directed the original authority for analogous hearing of both the original proceedings as it involves the claim for the same purpose over a particular piece of land by two different sets of people, as it was found to be a case of identity of tenant and further though the opposite party Nos. 4 & 5 claimed their right over the disputed property by virtue of a sale deed of the year 1975 from one late Bhramrbara Barik but on the other hand, purchased the said land from the landlord late Choudhury Balaram Dash and late Choudhury Janardan Dash in the year 1972. Petitioner claimed that the O.L.R. Case No. 84 of 1976 being an application under Section 36(A) of the O.L.R. Act, was not maintainable. On remand of both the matters to the Revenue Officer the opposite party No.3, the opposite party Nos. 4 & 5 preferred to withdraw their case vide OL.R. Case No. 84 of 1976. As a matter of caution, the present petitioner in O.L.R. Case No. 205 of 1975 made late Bharmar Barik as well as the opposite party Nos. 4& 5 being the landlord of the case land as they claimed to have purchased the land from the original landlord in the meantime. But however, in the proceeding on remand, the opposite party Nos. 4 & 5 contested the case as landlord and took a plea of protection under Section 24 (2) of the O.L.R. Act being a disable personality and sought for protection of their right. The O.L.R. Case No. 205 of 1975 was disposed of on contest and allowed in favour of the petitioner by declaring him as Raiyat and fixing compensation of Rs. 328/- to be payable to the opposite party Nos. 4 & 5, consequently the certificate of resumption was also issued in favour of the petitioner on 24.4.1994. As against the order allowing the O.L.R. Case No. 205 of 1975, the opposite party Nos. 328/- to be payable to the opposite party Nos. 4 & 5, consequently the certificate of resumption was also issued in favour of the petitioner on 24.4.1994. As against the order allowing the O.L.R. Case No. 205 of 1975, the opposite party Nos. 4 & 5 preferred appeal vide O.L.R. Appeal No. 1 of 1986 and the Sub-Collector, remanded the matter on 5.1.1986 on the ground that there was no public notice and also no consultation of the local Committee following the provisions of the O.L.R. Act. Thereafter, the Tahasildar after consulting the local Committee, after giving public notice and after hearing the parties again, decided the case in favour of the petitioner by order dated 8.2.1994. The opposite party Nos. 4 & 5 again preferred appeal vide O.L.R. Appeal No. 6 of 1994 before the Sub-Collector, Cuttack Sadar. The Sub-Collector, Cuttack Sadar in his order dated 17.8.1996 dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the opposite party Nos. 4 & 5 preferred Revision before the Additional District Magistrate, Cuttack vide O.L.R. Revision No. 3 of 1996 and the A.D.M. Cuttack in his order dated 20.3.1996 allowed the Revision. Hence, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner, which is being presently contested by the legal heirs of the original petitioner due to his death in the meantime. 3. In assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the opposite party Nos. 4 & 5 having initially claimed as a tenant under late Choudhury Balaram Dash and late Choudhury Janardan Dash, they were estopped from taking a stand otherwise. Appeals were allowed with an order of remand with a clear direction to the Revenue Inspector to identify the tenancy with the parties involved and therefore, when the opposite party Nos. 4 & 5 withdrew their application under Section 36(A) of the O.L.R. Act, were made the parties in the proceeding pending as landowners and as such, their claim for protection under Section 24(2) & 2(21) (e) of the O.L.R. Act was not available to them. 4 & 5 withdrew their application under Section 36(A) of the O.L.R. Act, were made the parties in the proceeding pending as landowners and as such, their claim for protection under Section 24(2) & 2(21) (e) of the O.L.R. Act was not available to them. Further, when such protection has been provided under the Amendment Act 29 of 1976 which came into force on 19.5.1976 and the O.L.R. case was filed in the year 1975, the benefit of the provision being not available at the time of institution of the suit and therefore, there has been wrong application of the provision by the Revisional Authority, for which, the revision order must go the order of the original authority must be maintained. 4. In spite of notice and appearance of some counsel in the matter by filing ‘Vakalatnama’, there is no appearance on behalf of the private opposite parties at the time of hearing. Thus, the matter is decided upon hearing the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State Counsel. 5. Learned State counsel on the other hand, even though does not refute to the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding non-applicability of provision under Section 24 (2) of the O.L.R. Act to the present case but for the observations and findings of the Revisional Authority, supported the impugned order and consequently, prayed for rejection of the writ petition. 6. From the pleadings as well as the arguments made by both the parties, this Court finds that at the initial stage there were two objection cases, first one was filed by the petitioner and second one was filed by the opposite party Nos. 4 & 5 and registered as O.L.R. Case No. 205 of 1975 o& O.L.R. Case No. 84 of 1976 respectively. Both the cases were not heard together. The O.L.R. Case and in absence of consideration of the materials available in the earlier O.L.R. Case and even without affording opportunity to the petitioner in the other O.L.R. Case. The appellate authority in hearing both the appeals vide Appeal No. 532/76 & Appeal No. 161/78 allowed both the appeals and remanded both the matters for retrial by the original authority. The appellate authority in the remand order had a categoric finding with regard to the plea taken by the opposite party Nos. The appellate authority in hearing both the appeals vide Appeal No. 532/76 & Appeal No. 161/78 allowed both the appeals and remanded both the matters for retrial by the original authority. The appellate authority in the remand order had a categoric finding with regard to the plea taken by the opposite party Nos. 4 & 5 in the original case and observed that the claim of the opposite party Nos. 4 & 5 was based on a clear pleading of purchase of the suit land in the year 1972 by their vendor and entering into a sale deed with them in the year 1975 by virtue of a registered sale deed and the claim of the opposite party Nos. 4 & 5 was solely based on their title over the property being the owner of the property. Therefore, the order of remand clearly indicated consideration of the case so far it relates to their claim of Raiyat over the disputed property. Now, upon remand of the matter by the appellate authority, it is seen that the opposite party Nos. 4 & 5 have withdrawn the OL.R. Case No. 84 of 1976 at their instance and took a strange plea of protection under Section 24(2) of the O.L.R. Act. This claim is not only a surprise claim by the opposite party Nos. 4& 5 but also unentertainable for introduction of a provision under the Act introduced by virtue of the provision coming into effect of enforcement of the Act 29 of 1976 w.e.f. 19.5.1976. It is thus, to be seen whether the opposite party Nos. 4 & 5 are permitted to take such plea? And further, whether such protection could be available to these persons for the subsequent introduction of the provision under the Act and having no retrospectivity? 7. Perusal of the documents, gives a clear picture that the claim of the opposite party Nos. 4 & 5 was merely on the basis of their claiming Raiyatship over the disputed property based on a plea of purchase of the property in the meantime. The opposite party Nos. 7. Perusal of the documents, gives a clear picture that the claim of the opposite party Nos. 4 & 5 was merely on the basis of their claiming Raiyatship over the disputed property based on a plea of purchase of the property in the meantime. The opposite party Nos. 4& 5 having no claim for protection of the Section 24(2) of the O.L.R. Act at the initial stage even till end of the proceeding by the appellate authority ended in remand by virtue of the order in the appeals, had no right to take a plea otherwise and it appears that the opposite party Nos. 4 & 5 had not participated in the proceedings with a clean hand. 8. Further, the provision under Section 24(2) of the O.L.R. Act reads as follows: “24. Resumption of tenanted lands – (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Chapter II, but subject to the conditions, limitations and restrictions hereinafter specified the landlord and the tenant shall have the right to the determination of the resumable and non resumable lands in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter and for the purposes thereof. Explanation –Resumable land refers to the land which can be resumed for personal cultivation by a landlord from a tenant. (2) Nothing in this Chapter shall apply in respect of lands held by a landlord who is a privileged raiyat or a person under disability.” There is no dispute to the fact that the provision under Section 24(2) of the O.L.R. Act came into force on introduction of the Act 29 of 1976 w.e.f. 19.5.1976 and the introduction had no retrospectivity. This Court finds the claim of the opposite party Nos. 4 & 5 for the protection of the Section 24(2) is not only a surprised one but for the entire conduct of the opposite party Nos. 4 & 5 right through the disposal of the appeal, this Court also finds the attempt of the opposite party Nos. 4 & 5 in the above regard is also a concocted and fabricated one. 4 & 5 right through the disposal of the appeal, this Court also finds the attempt of the opposite party Nos. 4 & 5 in the above regard is also a concocted and fabricated one. Even though they participated in the trial proceeding but there is no material absolutely brought to the original authority establishing their disability in order to get the protection of the provision contained in Section 24(2) of the Act besides there is also no availability of any certificate of disability as required under Sub-Section 21 of Section 2 of the O.L.R. Act. The affidavit under Ext. 3 cannot serve the requirement of the provision contained in Sub-Section 21 Section 2 of the O.L.R. Act. It is under the aforesaid premises this Court finds the observations and findings of the Revisional Authority not only runs contrary to the statutory provision of the Act but are also based taking into consideration the concocted move at the instance of the opposite party Nos. 4 & 5 for which, the order of the Revisional Authority cannot be sustained and thus, while setting aside the order under Annexure-1, this Court restores the orders passed by the original authority under Annexure-4 and the order of the appellate authority under Annexure-5. 9. The writ petition stands allowed with the directions contained hereinabove. Parties are directed to bear their own cost. Petition allowed.