JUDGMENT : Aswini Kumar Choudhury, Joint Commissioner - The revision case was re-heard as per order of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa dated 06.04.15 in W.P.(C) No. G376 of 2015 in the matter of Nayanabala Ray (O.P. No. 5) v. Joint Commissioner of Settlement and Consolidation, Cuttack and others including Ashutosh Roy (Petitioner of R.P. No. 236/14) as O.P. No. 6 where the Revision Court was directed to decide the case afresh finally after issuing notice to the parties. In Writ Appeal of the petitioner bearing W.A. No. 220/2015 which arises out of the above order of Hon'ble High Court the said appeal was dismissed on Advocate for the petitioner and O.P. No. 5 appeared and they filed each of their written note of arguments, documents and law citations contesting to each other. The Counsel for petitioner also filed additional written notes submission on 26.08.2016. The learned Standing Counsel also appeared representing for O.P. No. 1 & 2. Neither the O.P. No. 3 & 4 themselves nor anyone on their representing capacity appeared on repeated calls. So, they are set ex parte. 2. Perused the Revision case record of R.P. No.236/2014 raised U/s 15(b) of O.S & S Act,1958 (Shortly called as 'the Act') where the learned Advocate for petitioner contended that the mother of the petitioner namely Malati Dei had got Chirasthai Patta over Sabik Plot No. 3203 (part) Ac.0.23 dec out of 42 dec of Sabik Khata No. 135 of village Sanapatasundarpur from Ex-proprietor Choudhury Jayaram Das S/o-Harekrushna Das on 15.05.1945. Thereafter, her mother was paying rent to Ex-proprietor with rent receipts and since then her mother was possessing the land. After death of her mother the petitioner was paying rent to Anchal Tahasil, Niali and then Tahasil, Kantapada and possessing the case land in Gharabari Kissam which corresponds to last Settlement Plot No. 3592/5508, Ac.0.23 dec under Khata No.804 and then in Consolidation Khata No. 382 prepared in the name of Nayanabala Ray W/o. Rudraprakash Ray. Although she filed objection in Consolidation proceeding before the Consolidation Officer, Niali, but the final R.O.R. was prepared in the name of O.P. No. 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner moved to Hon'ble High Court of Orissa filing W.P.(C) No. 3112 of 2014 where 'the petitioner was directed to move the Revision Authority U/s.37(1) of O.C.H & P.F.L. Act 1972 for redressal of his grievance'. Being aggrieved, the petitioner moved to Hon'ble High Court of Orissa filing W.P.(C) No. 3112 of 2014 where 'the petitioner was directed to move the Revision Authority U/s.37(1) of O.C.H & P.F.L. Act 1972 for redressal of his grievance'. Since the Consolidation i R.O.R. was published U/s 13(4) of the said Act the learned Counsel for petitioner filed this revision petition U/s 15(b) of O.S & S. Act, 1958 praying to record the case land ultimately in her favour. In support of this he (the Counsel for petitioner) filed the following documents and law citations to substantiate I his claim. Documents filed by the petitioner : 1. Certified copy of Sabik R.O.R. Khata No.135 2. Unregistered Chirasthai Patta executed on 15.05.1945 3. Hand rent receipt for Ac.0.23 dec. of Sabik Khata No. 135 in the name of Smt. Malati Devi D/o. Chintamani Jena dated 15.05.1945 for the Sal of 1352, dated 27.07.1949 for the Sal 1353 to 1356, dated 27.04.1953 for the Sal 1357 to 1363. 4. (a) Revenue rent receipts in the name of Ch. Jayram Das. (i) No. 949742 dated 30.01.1985 for the year 1984-1985. paid by Malati Dei for Ac.0.23 dec.of Sabik Khata 0.135. (ii) No. 949743 dated 30.01.1985 for the year 1984-1985. paid by Ramchandra Routray for an area AC.5.48 dec. out of AC.5.71 dec. (b) Revenue rent receipts in the name of Harihar Routray for an area of Ac.0.23 dec. out of AC.1.21 dec.of Hal Jamabandi No.804. Paid by Malati Dei and her son Ashutosh Ray (after death of Malati) for the year 1986-1987 to 2002-03, 2007-08 to 2015-16, 5. Memo No.28622 dated 18.12.1971 of Supply Department of Govt. of Orissa for grant of permit in favour of Malati Routray for Rice mill. 6. Photo Copy of W.P(C) No.6376 of 2015 - Nayanabala Ray v. State and others. Law Citations filed by the petitioner. 1. 2008 (II) O.L.R 385 in W.P.(C) No.3082/2004. 2. 1986 (II) O.L.R 427 in W.P.(C) No.1058/1978. 3. Civil Appeal 1969 on 18th April 1969 between State v. B. Samantray & Ors. 4. 2005 (Supp.) O.L.R-826. in W.P.(C) No.6486/2005. 5. Laws (ORI)-1980-2-14-CLT-1980-49-468 in SA No.111/1977 in Second appeal No.111/1977 decided on 25.02.1980. 6. Laws (SC)-1962-4-32/AIR (SC)-1962-0-1912/CLT-29-169/SCR-1963-2-552 decided on 30.04.1962. 7. Provisions of section 5(i) and 3-A of OEA Act. 8. 2001 (I) OLR 208 in OJC No.2996/93 and 7542/1992. 9. 2005 (II) OLR 491 in OJC No.2381/91. 4. 2005 (Supp.) O.L.R-826. in W.P.(C) No.6486/2005. 5. Laws (ORI)-1980-2-14-CLT-1980-49-468 in SA No.111/1977 in Second appeal No.111/1977 decided on 25.02.1980. 6. Laws (SC)-1962-4-32/AIR (SC)-1962-0-1912/CLT-29-169/SCR-1963-2-552 decided on 30.04.1962. 7. Provisions of section 5(i) and 3-A of OEA Act. 8. 2001 (I) OLR 208 in OJC No.2996/93 and 7542/1992. 9. 2005 (II) OLR 491 in OJC No.2381/91. He also referred the following law decisions in his additional written note of submission which was filed on 26.08.2016 10. 1992 (II) OLR 529 11. 1992 (1) OLR 41 (F.B.) 12. A.I.R. 1958 Orissa 197, 13. A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 307, 14. A.I.R 2003 Kart. 217, 15. (1980) 49 C.L.T. 468 16. 1986 (II) O.L.R 427 17. 72 (1991) C.L.T. 553 18. 1976 C.W.R. 347. 3. The Learned Counsel for O.P. NO.4 & 5 vehemently opposed to the above claim and contentions on the following grounds with the documents and law citations that he relied on which stated in his written note of arguments and additional note of arguments. Grounds of objection : 1. The revision is not maintainable under the law caused for Non-Joinder and Mis-Joinder parties of Rudra Prakash Ray, Malati Devi, Ex-proprietor, Jayram Das or his legal heirs and barred by limitation without explaining the reasons of delay. 2. Chirasthai Patta is an unregistered documents. So it is not a document as per Indian Evidence Act and it hits tile principle of Indian Registration Act. 3. The documents of Chirasthai Patta granted to Smt. Malati Dei aged of 15 years without mentioning her husband's name and address proves the minority of Malati Dei. 4. The case land as per Sabik RO.R was under Nijdakhal and Khas possession of Ex-Proprietor Choudhury Jayram Das peacefully and he himself was a tenant under the State under the we Act and he submitted Jamabandi (rent rule) before Anchala Office paying rent. Tenant Ledger was open in the name of Ex-proprietor and he had transferred the land to Ramchandra Routray vide R.S.D NO.5757 dated 24.08.1959. So the Ex-proprietor had not inducted Malati Dei as tenant which decided in Decision reported in 2008 (Supp-I) O.L.R. 291 and neither she nor the petitioner had paid rent to the State after the land vested to Government. Any person who have never paid any rent to the State after vesting to State he never called as a tenant in the State as per case laws reported in 2012(1) OLR 817. 5. Any person who have never paid any rent to the State after vesting to State he never called as a tenant in the State as per case laws reported in 2012(1) OLR 817. 5. For continuity of tenants U/s 8(1) of O.E.A. Act the possession on the date of vesting is a necessary ingredient for recognition as tenant under the section which has been decided and the same reported in 2009/(Supp-II) O.L.R. 855. 6. The case land has been settled in the name of Ex-proprietor Choudhury Jayram Das against which the present petitioner or his mother has not gone for appeal and he or she has not filed or approached under the O.E.A. Act to declare as tenant. Order passed by the authority under O. E.A. Act cannot traverse beyond such order by any other authorities of such Act. 7. The unregistered Chirasthai Patta which valued Rs. 350/- requires registration U/s.17 of Indian Registration Act without which it is not admissible U/s.17(b) of Indian Registration Act and none has come forward to prove that it is genuine one. 8. Rent receipts without indicating plot No and claim of possession on the basis of rent receipts and also in absence of material evidence shah not be accepted as an evidence as per case laws reported in 95 (2003)CLT 85. 9. Since the genuineness of Hata Patta is shrouded of suspicious the dispute relating to correction of title in hal R.O.R. is not within the purview of Commissioner - Law decision reported in 2007(1) CLR 773 and 2007 (2) LCR 584. 10. The argument submitted by the petitioner is of no relevance as he has not filed the documents of vesting, Jamabandi, and etc. to prove - reported in 2006 (II) CLR-607. 11. As regars recognization of a tenant by Hata Patta the Ex-intermediary has not submitted rent roll-2008 (1) CLR-57. 12. The petitioner has not taken any step against the dismissal order of the objection case filed by the petitioner till date. 13. The petitioner has filed this revision U/s. 15(b) of O.S.S. Act without modification of order of Hon'ble High Court where Hon'ble High Court directed the petitioner to file case U/s.37(1) of O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act in his W.P.(C)No.3112/2014. 14. The Regd. 13. The petitioner has filed this revision U/s. 15(b) of O.S.S. Act without modification of order of Hon'ble High Court where Hon'ble High Court directed the petitioner to file case U/s.37(1) of O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act in his W.P.(C)No.3112/2014. 14. The Regd. documents for transfer of Case land executed by Choudhury Jayram Das to Ramchandra Routray and then to Harihar Routray by Ramchandra Routray and also then to Nayanbala Routray (O.P.No.5) by O.P.No.3 & 4 (the legal heirs of Harihar Routray) as a lot of sanctity which can't be lost without following the procedures - O.L.R. SC 2010 (11) 126. 15. The petitioner or anybody else has not yet raised any question about the validity of the Regd. Sale Deeds executed to transferee and ultimate transferee in the proper forum till yet. 4. So he prays that the revision petition deserves no merit which may be out rightly rejected and the Un-registered Hata Patta is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In his respect relied on e following documents of law decision. Law Decisions : 1. 2007(Supp-II) OLR NO.653 on First Appeal No.250/84 decided on 23.11.2007. 2. 2012 (1) O.L.R. 817 on Second Appeal No. 81/1987. 3. 2012 (1) OLR 1050 in O.J.C No. 7296/1998. 4. 2009 (Supp-II) OLR- 263 on First Appeal No.10/2001 decided on 30.07.2009 and W.P.(C) No.7434, 7962 & 8874 of 2008. 5. 2009(Supp-II) OLR-855 on OJC No. 4969 of 1996. 6. 95 (2003) CLT-85 on Second Appeal No. 173/1985. 7. 2008(1) CLR 57 on OJC No. 8314 of 1997 decided on 06.11.2007. 8. 2006 (1) CLR-482 on Second Appeal No. 106/1986 decided on 24.03.2006. 9. 2015 (1) ILR-CUT-323 on W.P.(C) No. 8624 of 2006. 10. 114 (2012) CLT 53 on Second Appeal No. 81 of 1987 decided on 15.02.2012. 11. 2006 (11) CLR 607 on Second Appeal No. 120/180. decided on 25.08.2006. 12. 2007 (11) CLR 584 on OJC 0.12134 of 1990 decided on 12.09.2007. 13. 2010 (11) OLR (SC)-126 on Civil Appeal Nos.3549-3551 of 2010. 14. 2007 (1) CLR-773 on W.P.(C) No.13029 of 2006 decided on 21.03.2007. 15. 2007(Supp-II) OLR 1097 on OJC No.12134 of 1998 decided on 12.09.2007. 16. GRCO (Civil) Rule-21 page No. 40 & 41. 17. 2011 (Supp-I) OLR 875. 18. 101 (2006) CLT-737 in Second Appeal No.106/1986 decided on 2-4.03.2006. 19. 2008 (Supp-1) OLR-291. 20. 2016 (11) ILRCUT-340. Documents filed by O.P. No. 4 & 5 : 1. 15. 2007(Supp-II) OLR 1097 on OJC No.12134 of 1998 decided on 12.09.2007. 16. GRCO (Civil) Rule-21 page No. 40 & 41. 17. 2011 (Supp-I) OLR 875. 18. 101 (2006) CLT-737 in Second Appeal No.106/1986 decided on 2-4.03.2006. 19. 2008 (Supp-1) OLR-291. 20. 2016 (11) ILRCUT-340. Documents filed by O.P. No. 4 & 5 : 1. Photo copy of petition of Crl. Misc. case No.15/2014 U/s.144(2) of Cr.P.C. between Ashutosh Ray v. Nayana Bala Ray. 2. Photo copy of application of Crl. Misc. case No.1/2015 U/s. 145 of Cr.P.C. between Ashutosh Ray v. Nayana Bala Ray. 3. Photo copy of order of Executive Magistrate, Kantapada dated 20.05.2015 of Crl. Misc. Case No.13 of 2015, in the matter of petitioner v. OP.No. 5 - sent to O.I.C. Govindpur for factual report, 4. Photo copy of petition filed by Ashutosh Ray in W.P.(C) No.8629 of 2014 a dismissed on 14.05.1914. Photo Copy of Documents filed by O.P. No. 5 : 1. R.S.D No. 5757 dated 24,08.1 959. 2. R.S.D No. 2567 dated 14.04,1972. 3. Order and report of Settlement objection of rent Case No. 1716. 4. M.S.R.O.R Khata No. 804. 5. Revenue rent receipt dated 27.01.1989 in the name of Harihar Routray for hal Khata No. 804 area AC.1.21 dec. vide C.C. No. 185/1988 and Revenue Rent Receipt dated 09.02.1989. 6.. Order of Addl Sub-Collector.(C.O Niali) dated 04.09.1912. In Consolidation objection Case No.6057/1999 U/s. 9(3)filed by the petitioner-dismissed for default. 7. R.S.D No. 10461301073 dated 10.06.1913. 8. Consolidation Land Register extract for Khata No. 983 in the name of Harihar Routray. 9. Consolidation final R.O.R U/s.13(4) Khata No. 382. 5. The Asst. Consolidation Officer (Hqrs), Consolidation Office Sadar, Cuttack, submitted parawise report in his letter No. 502, dated 07.12.2015 in response to my office letter No.423 dated 02.11.2015. and there he reported that the petitioner of this revision filed objection case No. 6057/1999 U/s.9(3) of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act 1972 which was dismissed for default. He also reported that hal Consolidation RO.R made U/s.13(4) of the Act has been prepared in the name of O.P.No.5 (Nayanbala Ray) as per order of objection case No. 6/2013 U/s. 15(1) of the Consolidation Act caused for her purchase in RS.D No. 10461301073 dated 10.06,2013. 6. Examined. He also reported that hal Consolidation RO.R made U/s.13(4) of the Act has been prepared in the name of O.P.No.5 (Nayanbala Ray) as per order of objection case No. 6/2013 U/s. 15(1) of the Consolidation Act caused for her purchase in RS.D No. 10461301073 dated 10.06,2013. 6. Examined. The historical background of this case in brief is that the sabik Plot No.3203 with an area of AC.0.42 dec, under sabik Khata No.135 stood recorded an the name of Choudhury Jayram Das, Ex-Proprietor in gharabari Kissan under 1st part Khewat No. 1 of Tauzi No.1980 in the Sabik status of 'Nijot'. The disputed hal plot No. 3592/5508 area AC.0.23 dec. is a part of the above sabik Plot. The Ex-Proprietor Choudhury Jayram Das had executed an un registered 'Chirasthai Patta' on 15.05.1945 for an area of Ac.0.23 dec. out of AC.0.42 dec. towards northern side in favour of Smt. Malati Dei aged of 15 years (minor) daughter of Chintamani Jena, Mahalayak by caste for consideration money of Rupees 350/- The rent receipts produced by the petitioner for the yea 1945, 1949, 1953 and 1985 reveals that she had paid rent for the year 1945, 953 0 960, 1985 in the name of Ex-Proprietor Jayram Das for an area of Ac.0.23 dec. where sabik Plot No. 3203 was noted in rent receipt of he year 1945. 7. It is undisputed that the estate of the Ex-Proprietor was vested in the State but no evidence is adduced a he effect of date of vesting of the disputed land. After vesting of the es ate the Ex-Proprietor Choudhury Jayram Das sold an area AC.0.33 dec. out of AC.0.42 dec.of the aforesaid sabik Plot No. 3203 towards western side to Ramchandra Routray S/o. Duryodhana Routray of Vill-Sanapatasundarpur in Regd. Sale Deed No. 5757 dated 24.08.1959 for a consideration money Rs.1000/- with possession. The vendee is the deceased father of the petitioner as well as the husband of Lessee Malati Dei. Then, Ramchandra Routray (vendee) sold an area Ac.0.23 dec. towards east of his purchased area AC.0.33 dec. of it to Harihar Routray ( the father of the O.P. No. 3 & 4) S/o of Durjadhana Routray belonging to the same village in Regd. Sale Deed No.2567 dated 14.04.1972 fora Consideration money of Rupees 1500/- with delivery of possession. Then, Ramchandra Routray (vendee) sold an area Ac.0.23 dec. towards east of his purchased area AC.0.33 dec. of it to Harihar Routray ( the father of the O.P. No. 3 & 4) S/o of Durjadhana Routray belonging to the same village in Regd. Sale Deed No.2567 dated 14.04.1972 fora Consideration money of Rupees 1500/- with delivery of possession. During Major Settlement operation mutation was allowed in the name of vendee, Harihar Routray in Settlement Rent objection case No. 1716 for his purchase and possession and by this, plot No. 3592/5508 Ac.0.23 dec. was recorded in his name in M.S. Khata No. 804 which was published on 28.03.1985. 8. Malati Dei and, after her death, he petitioner as son had continued to pay rent the State Govt, for the year 1985-86 to 2002-03 and 2007-08 to 2015-16, which is ascertained from the bunch of rent receipts. 9. During Consolidation operation the petitioner filed an objection case No. 6057/1999 U/s.9(3) of O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act. 1972 which was dismissed for default. The O.P.No.3 & 4 as two sons of the deceased of Harihar Routray sold the impugned case land to Nayanbala Ray (O.P.No.5) belonging to the same village in Regd. Sale Deed No. 1C461301073 dated 10.06.2013 for consideration money of Rs.1,50,000/-after which the O.P.No.S as ultimate transferee has been recorded in Consolidation final R.O.R. Khata No. 382 held U/s.13(4) of the Act on 30.10.2013 as per order of objection Case No. 6/2013 U/s.1S(1) of the said Act. Hence, this revision arose by petitioner U/s.1S(b) of the as & S Act 19S8 (shortly called as 'the Act') due to publication of R.O.R. U/s.13(4) of Consolidation Act instead of proceeding to High Court for modification of order, dated 18.03.2014 in W.P(C) No.31.12.2014 where he was directed 0 file a petition U/s.37(1) of the Act. The filing of this revision petition is objected by the O.P.No.S. On scrutiny of the case it is seen that the present dispute happened initially for the document of 'unregistered Chirasthai Patta' granted on 15.0S.1945 0 Malati Dei when she was minor and married and its subsequent transfer to Ramchandra Routray in Regd. Sale Deed No. 5757 dated 24.08.1959 by the same Ex-Proprietor Choudhury Jayram Das. It is vital to mention here that the Lessee Malai Dei is the deceased mother of the petitioner and the transferee Ramchandra Routray is the father of the petitioner. 10. Sale Deed No. 5757 dated 24.08.1959 by the same Ex-Proprietor Choudhury Jayram Das. It is vital to mention here that the Lessee Malai Dei is the deceased mother of the petitioner and the transferee Ramchandra Routray is the father of the petitioner. 10. In reply to the objections raised by the learned Counsel for O.P.No.5 in his written note of arguments, the plea of the learned Counsel for petitioner contended in para-13 of page-6 of his written note of submission that his mother Malati Dei was inducted as tenant by the Ex-Proprietor Jayram Das by granting Chirasthai Patta on 15.05.1945 with possession and thereby she and, after her death, the petitioner as son has been paying rent for the impugned case land from the year 1945 in the name of Ex-proprietor Jayram Das till the year 1960 leaving a gap of 6 years om 1946 to 1952 and also continued to pay from, the year 1985-86 to 2015-16 leaving a little gap of 3 years from 003-04 to 2006-07 in the name of Harihar Routray and obtained rent receipts. Her mother was also granted permission or establishing Rice Mill over this Sabik plot No. 3203. Rent receipts and Chirasthai Palta given before 1.01.1946 and permission for Rice Mill proves her/his possession and continuity of her mother's tenancy right created by Ex-Proprietor. So he relied on the provisions of section 8(1) of O.E.A. Act 1951 which provides - "Continuity oil tenure of tenants any person who immediately before the date of the vesting of an estate in the State Govt. was in possession of any holding as a tenant under an intermediary shall, on and from the date of vesting, be deemed to be a tenant of the State Govt, and such person shall hold the land in the same rights and subject to the same restrictions and liabilities as he was entitled for subject to, immediately before the date of vesting". 11. 11. In this respect he relied on the law decision reported in 1986 (II) O.L.R 427 in W.P.(C).No.1058/1978, Civil appeal 1969 on 18.04.1969 between State v. B. Samantaray & others, 2005 (Supp) O.L.R-826 in W.P.(C) No. 6486/2005, 2001 (I) O.L.R 2008 in O.J.C 0.2996/93 and 7542/1992, 2005 (II) O.L.R 491 in O.J.C. No.238 11991, 2012 (I) O.L.R 817 and 114 (2012) C.L.T. 53 in Second Appeal 0.81/1987 decided on 15.02.2012, AIR (SC)-1962-0-1912/CLT-1963-29-169/SCR-2-552 and other similar decisions supporting to his plea and contention on the provision of section 8(1) of O.E.A. Act. In view of such decisions and provisions of O.E.A. Act, section 8(1) is a declaratory provision. Tenants created by Ex-proprietor prior to 01.01.1946 by lease or Chirsthai Patta can't be questioned or enquired by the O.E.A collector. It is only to be declared as reported in 1986(11) O.L.R. 427 in W.P(C) No.1058/1978. There it is also held that 'A bare look at the above provision will show that action can be taken there under in respect of the Settlement of lease effected or created after the 15th day of January, 1946. Settlement of lease of the nature envisaged therein prior to 1st day of January, 1946, cannot come within its purview. Manifestly, according to both parties, lease was granted by the proprietor either in favour of the petitioner or in favour of Natha Kandi prior to 1.01.1946. Therefore, Section 5(i) of the O.E.A. Act is not applicable to this case nor were the orders as in Annexure-4 passed under its provisions'. 12. In case of Agriculture tenancy it is observed in Appellate Civil between Collector, Puri v. Budhinath Samantray & Another and held that 'Oral agreement accompanied by delivery possession or acceptance of rent-tenancy created'. Similar fact is also seen in a law decision of our own Hon'ble High Court on O.J.C No.2996 of 1993 and 7542 of 1992 reported in 2001 (1) C.L.R-208 that 'Hata Patta on agriculture land can be lease out orally by acceptance of rent and delivery possession. Hata Patta though not registered can be taken as evidencing oral lease'. Similar fact is also seen in a law decision of our own Hon'ble High Court on O.J.C No.2996 of 1993 and 7542 of 1992 reported in 2001 (1) C.L.R-208 that 'Hata Patta on agriculture land can be lease out orally by acceptance of rent and delivery possession. Hata Patta though not registered can be taken as evidencing oral lease'. In an another decision of Hon'ble High Court in Second Appeal No.81 of 1987 reported in 2012 (1) O.L.R-817 relating to section 2(h) and section 8 of O.E.A Act, it is held that 'the plaintiff, that they were holding the land under any landlord or any of the persons included in the definition-he claim their possession in their own right as owners' and 'plaintiffs never paid any rent to the estate after the land vested in the Govt.-the section only gives continuity of tenants but doesn't creates any new rights after the vesting of the estate in the State Govt'. 13. The written note of submission of the learned Counsel or the petitioner is self-explanatory to the objections of he O.P.No.5 and contradictory to the case laws reported in 2009 (Supp-II) O.L.R.-855, 95 (2003) C.L.T - 85, 2006 (Supp-II C.L.R -607, 2008 (Supp-1) O.L.R-291, 2016 (II) I.L.R-CUT-340, 2008 (I) C.L.R-57, 2007 (II) C.L.R - 584, 2010 (II) O.L.R (SC-126), 2007 (I) C.L.R-773, 2007 Supp-II) 0.L.R-1097, 2009 (Supp-II) O.L.R-263 etc. 14. On thorough analysis of documents in ratio to the law decisions cited above by both the parties it is seen that the Sabik Kissam of the case land was homestead under 'Nijot' of the Ex-proprietor. In both the Major Settlement R.O.R and Consolidation of R.O.R it was recorded in the same Kisam in Stitiban status in the name of the transferees sold by the Ex-Proprietor. No evidence is adduce as to the Settlement of land under provision of O.E.A Act either U/s 6 or 7 or 8(1) of the Act after the vesting of the estate. No evidence is also furnished on vesting date of the estate. On the other hand since the Sabik Kisam was 'homestead' of the Ex-Proprietor and the same sold by the Ex-proprietor to Ramchandra Routray (the deceased father of the petitioner and husband of Malati Dei) through R.S.D No. 5757 dated 24.08.1959. The said Regd. No evidence is also furnished on vesting date of the estate. On the other hand since the Sabik Kisam was 'homestead' of the Ex-Proprietor and the same sold by the Ex-proprietor to Ramchandra Routray (the deceased father of the petitioner and husband of Malati Dei) through R.S.D No. 5757 dated 24.08.1959. The said Regd. document has a lot of sancity attached to it and this sanctity can't be allowed to be lost without following the proper procedure as per the law decision decided in the matter of Civil Appeal No.3549 - 3551 of 2010 arising out of SLP(C) Nos.21108-21110 of 2010 which reported in 2010 (II) O.L.R. (SC) - 126. The Regd. documents cited by the O.P.No.5 is neither challenged nor set aside by anyone in the competent Court of law. 15. In accordance with the law citation reported in 2009 (Supp-II) O.L.R-855 in the matter of O.J.C. No. 4969/1996 decided on 24.04.2009 it is held that "to invoke any right U/S 8(1) of the O.E.A Act, two basic requirements have to be fulfilled. (1) A person claiming to be a tenant on the date vesting has to satisfy the authorities that he was inducted as a tenant by the intermediary o prior to vesting and (2) he was in a possession of the property on the basis of vesting" 16. So to fulfil the criteria of this provision of Section 8(1) of O.E.A. Act it is held that 'possession on the date of vesting being a necessary ingredient for recognisation as a tenant. Tahasildar has no Jurisdiction to decide as to who was in possession on the date vesting-person aggrieved had to approach the Civil Court for such determination. The similar significant and appropriate law decision is also cited and found in an another case reported in 2016 (11) ILR-CUT-340 in O.J.C No. 8556/1995 where it is held that "x x x Then question of possession plays a vital role in invoking right U/s 8(1) of the Act. The nature of enquiry conducted by the Tahasildar, Nimapara U/s. 8 (I) is administrative in nature. Thus the Tahasildar, Nimapara while exercising the power U/s 8(1) of the Act has no scope to adjudicate the disputed question of possession which is under exclusive domain of Civil Court having Jurisdiction. The nature of enquiry conducted by the Tahasildar, Nimapara U/s. 8 (I) is administrative in nature. Thus the Tahasildar, Nimapara while exercising the power U/s 8(1) of the Act has no scope to adjudicate the disputed question of possession which is under exclusive domain of Civil Court having Jurisdiction. In view of above, none of basic requirements of Section 8(1) of the Act is satisfied in this case and thus no reliance can either be placed under Annexure-1 or Annexure-2 series i.e. Chirasthai Patta and rent receipts stated to have been granted by the Ex-intermediary and the petitioner can't derive any benefit out of the same". This case law has been decided referring to the following 7 (seven)case laws : (i) (1995)Supp.3-SCC-249 (ii) 73(1992)CLT 868 - (iii) 1988(II)OLR 572 (iv) 57(1984)CLT 1 (v) 2013 (II) OLR 780 (vi) AIR 1955 SC 328 (vii) AIR 1964 Patna 1 (FB) 17. As to the plea of the petitioner to establish his possession on the evidence of rent receipts it is held in law decision reported in 95 (2003) CL T 85 that 'rent receipts' doesn't indicate plot Nos. plaintiff's claiming possession of the suit land on the basis of such documents not to be accepted'. In permission for establishing Rice Mill over sabik plot No. 3203 in the name of Smt. Malati Routray obtained in Form-II of Rule 3(4) was valid up to 29.02.1972 which was sent to Collector, Cuttack by Supply Deptt. of Govt. of Odisha in letter No. 472/1971 for report of enquiry to grant of license. 18. On the score of his claim on the basis of unregistered Chirasthai Hata Patta raised in the present revision are a long lapse of exceeding 70 years given by the Ex-Proprietor, Ch. Jayram Das for a consideration money of Rs.3501-requires registration U/s 17 of Indian Registration Act. In a case of dispute, the unregistered document proves that is a document of inadmissible as per section 17(b) of Registration Act. Jayram Das for a consideration money of Rs.3501-requires registration U/s 17 of Indian Registration Act. In a case of dispute, the unregistered document proves that is a document of inadmissible as per section 17(b) of Registration Act. The law citation reported in 2008 (I) CLR-57 in the matter of O.J.C No. 8314/1997 decided on 06.11.2007 reveals that - Under Section 8(1) of O.E.A. Act, 1951-" claim for recognition as a tenant on the strength of Hata Patta said to have been granted by the Ex-intermediary in 1944 eight years after the vesting - No rent role submitted by the Ex-intermediary after vesting-Ex-intermediary did not claim forward claiming compensation for his land vested by filing compensation case - Report of the Amin and R.I. filed on the same date creating doubt regarding genuineness there of-Authenticity of Xerox copy of rent role filed by the petitioner is doubtful - order passed by the Tahasildar, rejecting the claim of the petitioner upheld". In absence of the relevant documents as observed by Hon'ble High Court it leads to believe that such unregistered Hata Patta is shrouded with suspicion in accordance with the law decision reported in 2007 (Supp-II) OIR-1097 and 2007(11) CIR-584 decided in O.J.C No.12134/1998 on 12.09.2007. In another case law reported in 2006 (II) CLR-607 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Orissa on 25th August, 2006 in Second Appeal No. 120/1980 it is held that 'O.E.A. Act, 1951-plea of vesting of the suit property-No document relating to vesting of the suit property-nor any jamabandi or any other document produced or proved in that respect-Held, any argument relating to consequence of vesting is of no relevance'. 19. In view of the above detail analysis of facts and findings over the disputed title and possession of the case land under the proviso of Section 8(1) of O.E.A Act 1951, this revision Court relying upon case laws discussed above and in another case law reported in 2011 (Supp-I) OLR-875 in the matter of O.J.C. No.14659 of 1997 decide on 25.10.2010 arrived in opinion that "Settlement authority lacks Jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the question of title - For the purpose of Revenue Records, the Record of Rights is prepared and the law attaches the presumption of correctness to the entries made therein' and as such the revision is disallowed. Liberty allowed to approach in the appropriate Court of law for legal relief. 20. Liberty allowed to approach in the appropriate Court of law for legal relief. 20. Pronounced order in the open Court today. Final Result : Allowed