JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. W.P. (C) No. 2180 of 2002 was originally filed by Basant Kumar Sahoo assailing the judgment vide Annexure-4 passed in Consolidation Revision Case No. 148 of 2006 on his death is being represented by his L.Rs. O.J. (C) No. 11572 of 2001 is filed by Sukadev Mallik and another challenging the order passed by the Deputy Director in Appeal Case Nos. 34, 36, 37, 38, 40 & 43 of 1993 vide nnexure-2 and also the order of the Commissioner in Revision Case Nos. 148 & 149 of 1996 whereas in O.J.C. No. 11573 of 2001, Sukadev Mallik again challenged the orders passed by the Deputy Director in Appeal Case Nos. 34, 36, 37, 38, 40 & 43 of 1993 appearing at Annexure-2 as well as the order of the Commissioner in Consolidation Revision Case Nos.148 of 1996 and 149 of 1996 appearing at Annexure-3. Since the parties in all the proceedings are same and the contest remaining between the parties over the same disputed land, this Court decides the cases vide this common judgment. 2. For clarity of the matter, this Court finds Consolidation Revision Case No.148 of 1996 involved objection Case No. 2642 of 1990 concerning L.R. Khata No. 470 at the instance of Debabrata being allowed, challenged in Appeal No. 38 of 1993 and the appeal was allowed. This also involved the Objection case No. 2424 of 1990 at the instance of Sukadeb concerning L.R. Khata No. 470. Objection Case being allowed, Appeal No. 40 of 1993 was preferred and the appeal being allowed, Revision Case No. 148 of 1996 was filed. Similarly, so far as Revision No. 149 of 1996 is concerned, this Court finds the same is off suit of L.R. Khata No. 440, Objection Case No. 2762 of 1990 and Objection Case No. 2423 of 1990 preferred at the instance of Basanta and Sukadeb. Objection Case No. 2762 of 1990 being dismissed as against Basanta, he preferred Appeal No. 34 of 1993, the appeal was allowed. Similarly, Objection Case No. 2423 of 1990 at the instance of Sukadeb being allowed, Appeal 43 of 1993 preferred and allowed and both the orders in Objection Case No. 2762 of 1990 consequently Appeal Case No.34 of 1993 and Objection Case No. 2423 of 1990 involving Appeal No.43 of 1993 were challenged in Revision No. 149 of 1996. Similarly, Objection Case No. 2423 of 1990 at the instance of Sukadeb being allowed, Appeal 43 of 1993 preferred and allowed and both the orders in Objection Case No. 2762 of 1990 consequently Appeal Case No.34 of 1993 and Objection Case No. 2423 of 1990 involving Appeal No.43 of 1993 were challenged in Revision No. 149 of 1996. From the reading of the cause title portion involving Revision Case No. 149 & 148 of 1996, this Court finds the Revision order find place at Annexure-4 of O.J.C. No. 2180 of 2002 and Annexure-3 to O.J.C. No.11572 of 2002 and O.J.C. No. 11573 of 2002 respectively disclose both these revisions were at the instance of Sukadeb Mallik and Basanti Samal making Basanta Kumar Sahu, the petitioner in O.J.C. No. 2180 of 2002 as party. Further reading of the revisional order also discloses that the above two revisions were directed against the order dated 28.10.1998 passed by the Deputy Director in Appeal Nos. 34, 36, 37, 38, 40 & 43 of 1993 reversing the order dated 26.11.1992 and 15.12.1992 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Marsaghai involving Objection Case Nos. 2762, 2760, 2218, 2642, 2424 & 2423 of 1990 filed under Section 9(3) of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act, 1972. 3. For better appreciation of the facts and allegation involved in the above bunch of proceedings, it is necessary here to bring the genealogy given by the parties, which is as herein below. Late Mana Sahu Late Madha Late Madhu Late Gadei Late Sobani Late Sumitra Late Chintamani Late Dukhei Late Uluchha Late Sukadev Banambar Bhikari Radharani Basanta Late Dinabandhu Late Gokhani Rukmani Tara Late Basanti Late Labanga Debabrat Satyabrata Suvrat Late Anusaya/ Baidyanath Priyambada Sakuntala Sharmistha Devjani Samir Sabita Salila 4. This genealogy appears to the admitted by the present petitioners in all respect except the fact that Bhikari is the adopted son of late Dukhei and Uluchha. While Sobani, Chintamani, Dukhei and Sukadev were living in jointness, some disputes crept in amongst above members resulting a dissention among them in and around, 1932. Ultimtely, with an unequivocal intention of partition of all their joint family properties, both the movable and immovable, unanimously appointed some arbitrators. Further, resulting a memorandum of partition prepared by the Arbitrator was duly executed by the parties. Ultimtely, with an unequivocal intention of partition of all their joint family properties, both the movable and immovable, unanimously appointed some arbitrators. Further, resulting a memorandum of partition prepared by the Arbitrator was duly executed by the parties. But for some unavoidable reasons, the Arbitrators award could not be delivered even though parties involved in the award continued to live in separate mess and residence by enjoying their respective allotted shares including the residential homestead stands over C.S. Plot No. 858. Taking advantage of non-delivery of award, Chintamani Sahoo initiated T.S. No. 18 of 1938 to acknowledge the said award and to make it a rule of law. With the consent of all the parties, the matter was referred to three new Arbitrators being appointed by the Court. The new Arbitrators submitted a fresh memorandum of partition. On filing of the fresh memorandum of partition, the Civil Court passed a decree in terms of the memorandum of partition making way for recording all the respective properties in favour of the respective parties. While the matter stood thus, Sobani Sahoo, the ancestors of the vendors of the petitioners entered into at least 11 number of transactions in between 1939 to 1941 and Sobani Sahoo claimed to be the exclusive owner of the properties in 11 transactions subsequent to the decree of partition and kept the properties under his exclusive possession along with the properties allotted to him by virtue of the decree for partition. Further facts reveal that after the death of Sobani Sahoo in the year 1955, the disputed land i.e. the purchased land in the meantime definitely after the decree of partition along with the properties allotted under partition was claimed to have been succeeded to his only son Dinabandhu Sahoo and Dinabandhu Sahoo appears to have been alienated certain properties out of the above purchased properties of his deceased father in favour of one Narahari Das belongs to same village through Registered Sale Deed. Dinabandhu Sahoo died in the year 1980 leaving behind his widow, three sons and five daughters, who have been claimed to become the owners of the disputed plot along with other properties by virtue of decree in the suit for partition. The daughters of Dinabandhu Sahoo orally relinquished all their interest in the suit land along with other properties came by virtue of partition in favour of their mother and three brothers. The daughters of Dinabandhu Sahoo orally relinquished all their interest in the suit land along with other properties came by virtue of partition in favour of their mother and three brothers. Subsequently, to meet the legal necessity, the sons and widow of Dinbandhu Sahoo alienated total extent of Ac.11.25 decimals of land in favour of the present opposite party nos.4 and 5, namely, Sukadeb Mallik and Basanti Samal, the petitioners in Revision Nos.148 of 1996 and 149 of 1996 by virtue of Registered Sale Deed No. 2497 dated 23.4.1982 and Registered Sale Deed No.4736 dated 22.4.1982 resulting a consequential delivery of possession of the disputed property in their favour. After the purchase by virtue of the above Registered Sale Deeds, Sukadeb Mallik and Basanti Samal, (present opposite party nos.4 and 5) as objectors filed Objection Case Nos. 2423 & 2424 of 1990 under Section 9(3) of the Act for recording their name against the lands purchased under Registered Sale Deed No.2497 dated 23.4.1982 and Registered Sale Deed No. 4736 dated 22.4.1982 respectively including certain corrections in respect of the area. Similarly, other purchaser Narahari Das filed Objection Case No. 2218 of 1990 to record his name as against the land purchased through Dinabandhu Sahu, son of Sobani. Basaanta Kumar Sahu also initiated Objection Case No. 2761 of 1990 involving a part of the disputed property. The Consolidation Officer in his common judgment dated 15.12.1992 deciding Objection Case Nos. 2423, 2424, 2218 & 2761 of 1990 allowed the claim of Sukadeb Mallik and Basanti Samal by recording their name against purchased land in Hal Khata No.440 exclusively. Parties aggrieved filed Appeal Nos. 34 of 1993, 36 of 1993, 37 of 1993, 38 of 1993, 40 of 1993 and 43 of 1993under Section 12 of the Act. The Appellate Authority allowed all the appeals in favour of Sukadeb Mallik and Basanti Samal on the premises that the disputed lands do not come within the purview of partition decree involving T.S.No.18 of 1938 and that the suit land was the exclusive property of Sobani, the petitioner alone to succeed against these properties forcing Sukadeb Mallik and Basanti Saml to file Revision Nos. 148 & 149 of 1996. Looking to the contest of the parties, it appears that presently the dispute is involved in Appeal Case Nos. 34, 43 of 1993 as well as 40 of 1993 and Appeal Case Nos. 148 & 149 of 1996. Looking to the contest of the parties, it appears that presently the dispute is involved in Appeal Case Nos. 34, 43 of 1993 as well as 40 of 1993 and Appeal Case Nos. 36, 37, 38 of 1993 involved different properties. 5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds admittedly there was a partition suit bearing T.S. No. 18 of 1938 though at some place indicated as O.S.No.18 of 1938. Partition in the entire joint family properties was made village-wise. Basanta was allotted entire properties of Village-Aangulai where as other co-sharers were allotted properties in other villages. Looking to the final decree papers, properties under Schedule ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘F’ were allotted to Chintamani, Sobani, Dukhei and Basanta respectively. Basanta being minor represented by Sobni Sahu as his guardian all through. Therefore, there is no dispute that the final decree is binding on all the parties including Dinabandhu Sahu. Consequently, remaining of Basanta Sahu as owner of the properties of village-Angulai, the vendor of Sukadeb Mallik and Basanti Samal had no sellable right in favour of the petitioners after the decree of partition. The proceeding all through discloses Sukadeb Mallik and Basanti Samal claimed their right over the disputed property based on Registered Sale Deed of the year 1982 being executed by the successors of Sobani, who in turn acquired the same through 7 Registered Sale deeds in between 1939 to 1943. So far as the property acquired by Sobani in village-Angulai after the partition decree covered in Register Sale Deeds of 1940, 1941 and 1943, this Court finds the properties involved there under are the exclusive properties of Sobani and Basanta Sahu has no title over the said properties. It is in these premises, this Court finds the claim of Sukadeb Mallik and Basanti Samal that the disputed land purchased by Sobani in the year 1939 before the decree in the Civil Court is the exclusive property of Sobani is not correct. From the discussions in the order passed by the Appellate Authority, this Court finds the Appellate Authority has taken the correct approach so far it relates to Sale Deed of the year 1939 thereby holding the properties involved in 1939 Sale Deed are the exclusive properties of Basanta Sahu as a fall out of the partition decree in 1938. From the discussions in the order passed by the Appellate Authority, this Court finds the Appellate Authority has taken the correct approach so far it relates to Sale Deed of the year 1939 thereby holding the properties involved in 1939 Sale Deed are the exclusive properties of Basanta Sahu as a fall out of the partition decree in 1938. But so far as the observation of the appellate court in respect of properties acquired by Sobani by virtue of Registered Sale Deeds in the year 1940, 1941 and 1943 being acquired after the Civil Court Decree and Basanta Sahu had no right over the said properties after the partition taken effect, for the objection of Basanta Sahu that the properties involved in Registered Sale Deeds of the year 1940, 1941 and 1943 are being purchased by Sobani Sahu from the joint nucleus benefit even managing the properties on behalf of Basanta Sahu and Sobni Sahoo having purchased those properties as Karta of the family, this Court finds neither the Appellate Authority nor the Revisional Authority have given a proper consideration to the materials available in the case in so far it relates to the properties involved in the Sale Deeds in the year 1939, 1941 and 1943 vis-à-vis the claim of Basanta Sahu. This Court finds the order of the Revisional Authority so far it relates to Sale Deeds of the year, 1940, 1941 and 1943 cannot be sustained and as the matter is required re-consideration on the above aspect, while setting aside the order under Annexure-4, this Court remits the matter back to the Revisional Authority for re-hearing of the Revisions giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and deciding the whole issue involved thereunder afresh. For the decision of this Court involving O.J.C. No. 2180 of 2002, writ petitions vide O.J.C. No. 11572 of 2001 and O.J.C. No. 11573 of 2001 also succeeds so far it relates to Annexure-3 in all the writ petitions. Under the circumstances fate of the decision of the Appellate Authority now will be dependant on the fresh judgment to be passed by the Commissioner in Revision Case Nos.148 and 149 of 1996. The writ petitions succeed to the extent indicated hereinabove. However, there is no order as to cost. L.C.R be sent back immediately. Under the circumstances fate of the decision of the Appellate Authority now will be dependant on the fresh judgment to be passed by the Commissioner in Revision Case Nos.148 and 149 of 1996. The writ petitions succeed to the extent indicated hereinabove. However, there is no order as to cost. L.C.R be sent back immediately. The certified copies of the original sale deeds filed by Sri B.K. Sahu vide memo dated 3.10.2016 be returned back for their placement in the Revisional Court.