JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned orders under Annexures-1 & 3 passed by the authorities under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972. 2. In assailing the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that for the existence of a registered deed of acknowledgement confirming an adoption taken place earlier to the deed of acknowledgement, the original Court as well as the revisional Court went wrong entering into the admissibility of the document and further entering into the merit involving the adoption, which power, the authorities did not have under the Statute. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even assuming that a dispute was raised in the matter of acceptability of the adoption, the issue should have been left open to the party to be agitated before the Civil Court and the decision thereon should have been taken by the Civil Court itself. It is under these premises, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both the orders under Annexures-1 & 3 are bad in law. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.4 on the other hand submitted that in view of the materials forthcoming, dispute with regard to the validity of the adoption and questioning the deed of acknowledgement, both the authorities did no wrong in adjudicating the said issue and decided the matter in their favour. Under the circumstances, learned counsel for the opposite party No.4 claimed that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders. 4. Mr. K.K. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel contended that since the adoption is oral and the facts revealing compliance of requirement of the adoption only through the Registered Deed of acknowledgement, such adoption cannot be believed and therefore, the Courts below involving the impugned orders under Annexures-1 & 3 did no wrong in disbelieving the fact of adoption and rejecting the claim of the petitioner for recording the land in his favour. 5. 5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds the fact involved in the proceeding that the present petitioner filed an Objection Case bearing No.552/1992 under Section 9(3) of the O.C.H. & P. F.L. Act claiming recording his name as against the disputed property involved therein, it also appears that the matter was decided on contest and the original authority taking into consideration that there is a dispute with regard to the validity of adoption, the Objection Case was turned down. In the appeal at the instance of the petitioner, the appellate authority considering the rival contentions made therein, set-aside the order passed by the original authority and allowed the appeal directing for including the name of the petitioner in the land register after holding that the question with regard to the validity of the adoption should have been left open for the determination of the dispute by the competent authority. On revision the Revisional Authority entering into the question of validity of the adoption and the deed of acknowledgement thereby reversing the order of the appellate authority, confirmed the order passed by the original authority. 6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and after perusing the observations of the original authority as well as revisional authority, this Court finds the root question to be decided herein is looking to the objections at the instance of the opposite party under the objection case challenging the validity of adoption followed by a registered deed of acknowledgement, in the existence of a registered deed of acknowledgement whether the authorities working under the O.C.H. & P.F.L Act, 1972 has the jurisdiction to go into such dispute? Considering the rival contentions of the parties and after perusing the pleadings all through, this Court finds the objection case was filed on the basis of a deed of acknowledgement confirming an adoption taken prior to the deed of acknowledgement, there appears the opposite parties to the objection case raised an oral objection that the adoption was not in accordance with law. Under the circumstances, this Court finds the petitioner’s case was based on a registered deed of acknowledgement confirming the adoption taken previously to the registered deed of acknowledgment. Under the circumstances, this Court finds the petitioner’s case was based on a registered deed of acknowledgement confirming the adoption taken previously to the registered deed of acknowledgment. Since the question of adoption was disputed by the opposite parties to the objection case in deciding the matter, the Consolidation Authority looking to the power conferred under the Act, since had no power to enter into such question, ought to have left the issue open to be decided in appropriate forum and decided the objection case on the basis of existing materials. Under the circumstances and in view of the settled position of law, this Court finds the original authority as well as the revisional authority entering into the questions of adoption is without jurisdiction, this Court while setting aside the orders under Annexures-1 & 3, restores the order passed by the appellate authority under Annexure-2. 7. The writ petition stands allowed. Parties to bear their own cost.