ORDER 05.04.2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Opposite Party No. 3 and learned counsel for the State. Perused the case records. 2. In this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the Order dated 15.03.2008 passed by the Member Board of Revenue Orissa in. OEA Revision Case No. 84 of 2002. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The disputed property measuring Ac. 0.25 pertaining to Sabik Plot No. 290 under Sabik Khata No. 25 in Mouza-Naripur corresponding to Hal Plot No. 434 under Hal Khata No. 216 was the property of ex-intermediary. Admittedly the intermediary sold the same property by Registered Sale Deed No. 8460 in favour of one Laxmi Das who subsequently sold the same in favour of the father of present Opposite Party No. 3 vide Registered Sale Deed No. 57 dated 28.01.1946. The further undisputed fact is that the intermediary interest in respect of the property vested in the State on 13.04.1961 Us. 3-A of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act 1951 and no one having filed any claim application for settlement the property was recorded in the Hal Bebandobasta Khata No. 11782. A Suo motu Bebandobasta case was initiated before Tahasildar Bhadrak bearing OEA No. 4391156091 and notice was issued to the petitioners as well as other co-sharers of the joint family including Opposite Party No. 3. By final order dated 06.01.1994 the Tahasildar Bhadrak directed to record the land jointly in the names of the petitioners as well Opposite Party No. 3 and his deceased mother. Challenging the aforesaid order of Tahasildar Bhadrak and claiming exclusive right by way of purchase Opposite Party No. 3 and his brother filed OEA Appeal No. 6 of 1994 before the Sub-Collector Bhadrak. In the meantime a Civil Suit bearing No. 147 of 1994 had been filed in the court of the learned Judge Senior Division Bhadrak between the parties for partition of joint family property including the disputed land. During pendency of the OEA appeal before the Sub-Collector the suit was disposed of with a finding that the disputed land was the joint family property of the parties. In accordance with the finding in the Civil Suit the Sub-Collector dismissed the appeal on 08.02.2002 (Annexure-3) confirming the order of the Tahasildar 4. During pendency of the OEA appeal before the Sub-Collector the suit was disposed of with a finding that the disputed land was the joint family property of the parties. In accordance with the finding in the Civil Suit the Sub-Collector dismissed the appeal on 08.02.2002 (Annexure-3) confirming the order of the Tahasildar 4. Opposite Party No. 3 challenged the decree passed in the Civil Suit in First Appeal No. 404 of 1999 before this Court and at the same time challenged the order passed by the Sub-Collector Bhadrak before the Member Board of Revenue in OEA Revision Case No. 84 of 2002. The Revision was decided as a review in terms of Para No. 3 (XXVI) of the Circular No. 57677R dated 06.12.2000 of the Revenue Department and the Member held that the property should be recorded in the name of Opposite Party No. 3 and his mother as because they were the purchasers. Though the Member Board of Revenue was cognizant of the fact that there was a Civil Suit in absence of judgment passed in the Civil Suit the Member Board of Revenue finally observed as follows:- 21. However it is for the Civil Court to decide whether the said intermediary interest in the suit land was the joint family interest or not. If it is decided by them that the said intermediary interest was acquired by Amarnath Das jointly with his faour brothers then the orders of this court above would need modification. The opposite parties are given liberty to file the petition for review of the above orders of this court if the civil courts decided accordingly. 5. The First Appeal that was filed by Opposite Party No. 3 against the decree passed in the suit has in the meantime been dismissed by judgment dated 16.09.2013 and the property has been held to be a joint family property of the parties. In view of the decision in the First Appeal as well as observations of the Member Board of Revenue in the last part of the order impugned we have no hesitation to hold that the disputed property is the joint family property. As such the direction given by the Member Board of Revenue that the property be recordedsettled in favour of Opposite Party No. 3 alone cannot be sustained. 6. As such the direction given by the Member Board of Revenue that the property be recordedsettled in favour of Opposite Party No. 3 alone cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by the Member Board of Revenue in OEA Revision No. 84 of 2002 and restore the Order passed by the Tahasildar Bhadrak. The writ petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of.