JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order under Annexure-3 so also the order under Annexure-4 to this writ petition. 2. In assailing the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the existence of the order dated 16.6.1967 vide Annexure-1 and taking into consideration the Xerox copy of the R.O.R of Mouza, Gokheneswar along with Xerox copy of the trace map of the disputed plot brought by the petitioner, there was no occasion with the competent authority to direct for a fresh inquiry vide order dated 29.5.2006 (Annexure-4) and the direction for fresh inquiry is also taken in absence of any application by either of the contesting parties and it is in these premises, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that not only the order dated 29.5.2006 is bad in law but the report obtained following the above order and the order impugned vide Annexure-3 a development following the order dated 29.5.2006 also become bad. Sri Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the order available at annexure-1 also contended that considering the case of the parties, the competent authority is already in possession of a report involving the petitioner and the original owner based on which, the order vide Annexure-1 was passed, this order remained final and conclusive for not being challenged and no circumstances there was any scope for obtaining a further report. 3. Mr. J.R. Dash, learned counsel for the private opposite party on the other hand, opposing the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on the face of the order dated 16.6.1976-the order being passed not involving the present opposite parties, is bad in law. Learned counsel also contended that for the developments taken place in between involving the ceiling proceeding and some other proceedings concerning the disputed properties death of original land owner, there is a sea change in the actual position involving the disputed land and therefore, the direction for fresh inquiry by the order dated 29.5.2006 was very much justified. Further a report having been obtained following the order of the authority dated 29.5.2006 in active participation of the petitioner, it is now not open to the petitioner at this stage to resile from his submission before the inquiry proceeding in compliance of the order dated 29.5.2006 and take a reversal stand. Further a report having been obtained following the order of the authority dated 29.5.2006 in active participation of the petitioner, it is now not open to the petitioner at this stage to resile from his submission before the inquiry proceeding in compliance of the order dated 29.5.2006 and take a reversal stand. Under the circumstances, Sri J.R. Dash, learned counsel contended that there is no illegality in the impugned orders under Annexure-4 or Annexure-3 in turning down the request of the petitioner for not adhering to the report submitted in between. 4. Mr. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel taking support of the submission made by the learned counsel for the opposite party No.4 attempted to justify the impugned orders. 5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds the proceeding under Section 36 (A) of the OLR Act vide O.L.R Case No.454 of 1976 was initiated at the instance of the petitioner for declaring him as a tenant under the original owner and for the consequential directions following the provisions contained in Section 36 (A) of the Act. This proceeding was taken up involving the original land owner being represented by one of his authorized agent. After conducting due inquiry and finding admissions of the opposite party therein i.e. the original landlord in his written statement in the said proceeding admitting the petitioner as a tenant over Acre 1.80 dec. of land and after entering into an inquiry conducted through the Revenue Inspector, the competent authority has reached up to the level of declaring the petitioner as a tenant under the original owner as clearly reflected by his order dated 16.6.1976. It has been admitted by all concerned that the order dated 16.6.1976 has not been challenged by any concerned and this order has attended its finality and only a determination of a proceeding under Section 36 (A) is pending before the competent authority. Further, considering the submissions made by the respective parties and on perusal of the documents appended to the writ petition as well as the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party No.2, it appears that either the original owner or the successors of the original owner i.e. the present private opposite parties remained busy in making an attempt to exclude some of the properties of the original owners by adopting several means and introducing several new stories even claiming right by creating a Trust. Records disclose that such claim of the private opposite parties remained final after the Court of competency declaring the trust a false and deliberate creation for the purpose of diversion of the properties of the original owner from the purview of the ceiling proceeding, taking advantage of the relaxation given in the OLR Act. It appears that the dispute of different nature involving the disputed property has visited several times to this Court and the proceeding vide O.L.R. Case No.454 of 1976 was on several occasion directed to be suspended by way of interim orders therein. As appears presently, when all the interim orders stalling the proceeding vide O.L.R. Case No.454 of 1976 got vacated or remain inoperative, the proceeding was restarted in the year 2006. It is at this point of time and looking to the preparation of Hal records, the petitioner was constrained to bring to the notice of the competent authority the document concerning the Hal records and it appears that the petitioner had done so only for the purpose of matching of the land, looking to the change in the records concerning the disputed land taken place in the meantime for the settlement operation taking place in the locality in the meantime and considering such claim, it appears that the competent authority simply directed for a field inquiry and for a report for the purpose of further proceeding under Section 36 (A) of the Act. From the observations made hereinabove and for the developments taken place as on date, the inquiry as directed by the competent authority under the direction dated 29.5.2006 was limited to the extent of matching purpose, looking to the change in the records concerning the land records for the further settlement operation taken place in the meantime and death of the original land owner and coming of his successors, cannot make a difference in the claim of the parties and parties cannot be permitted to go behind the order available at annexure-1 which also admittedly has not been challenged by any concern as on date. Under the circumstances, this Court finds the direction dated 29.5.2006 has been misconstrued and misapplied by treating it to be a fresh inquiry involving the property. Under the circumstances, this Court finds the direction dated 29.5.2006 has been misconstrued and misapplied by treating it to be a fresh inquiry involving the property. As a consequence of which, this Court finds the report if any, obtained making a fresh inquiry even in the participation of the petitioner becomes bad in Law and such report cannot be relied in the existence of already a report through the Revenue Officer called for at the relevant point of time and for the no challenge to the order dated 16.6.1976 by any concern. Under the circumstances, this Court in accepting the plea of the petitioner allows this writ petition declaring the order dated 29.5.2006 vide Annexure-4 directing for fresh enquiry as bad and interfering in the same hold the same is limited to the extent of an inquiry for the purpose of matching of the disputed land taking into consideration the Hal records as well as the Sabik records and report be submitted to this extent only. This Court also directs the concerned authority to proceed with the matter under Section 36(A) of the Act taking into consideration the report as indicated hereinabove and while deciding this matter for the reasons indicated hereinabove, this Court also sets aside the order dated 18.8.2011. The proceeding now pending be also concluded within a period of two months hence. 6. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicted hereinabove. Parties to bear their own cost.