JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order vide Annexure-6 to this petition passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation, Orissa Cuttack in revision case No.2049/96. 2. Short background involved in the case is that Krushna, Naba, Bira, Balunkeswar are the son of Gangadhara. In the year 1962, there was a family settlement between Krushna, Naba and Balunkeswar and in deciding one third share each from the disputed property in between the above three brothers ignoring the case of Bira the other brother i.e. the present petitioner. There has been some developments involving the disputed property by way of sale of share belonging to the Balunkeswar in favour of the Krushna and then Krushna and Naba sold their share in favour of the opposite party No.4. Being aggrieved by the illegal family settlement, the petitioner preferred a title suit bearing No.53/89 involving all the brothers and the suit was decided on compromise deciding one forth share in favour of each of the four brothers. Admittedly, this decree has not been challenged by any person. Depending upon the sale of the property by the other brothers, the land records were prepared and the petitioner in spite of getting decree in the civil Court since did not find his name in the land records, preferred objection case for correction of the land record. The objection case No.1475/360 was rejected by the Consolidation Officer. Consequently, the petitioner preferred an appeal bearing No.59/94. The Assistant Consolidation Officer in interfering in the order of the Consolidation authority remanded the matter to the C.O. for fresh adjudication and in the fresh adjudication, the Consolidation Officer allowed the claim of the petitioner thereby directing for recording of the L.R. Khata Nos.444 Ac.0.61 decimals, 445 Ac.0.43 decimals and 446 Ac.0.29 decimals jointly in the name of Prasanta, Naba, Prasanna and Bira. The opposite party Nos.4 & 5 filed appeal as against the order passed in the objection case. The appeal was dismissed. A revision was preferred by the opposite party No.4 vide Consolidation Revision No.205 of 1996. It is alleged that the Revisional authority reversed the order passed by the original authority as well as the appellate authority in non-considering the facts and materials available on record and in complete ignorance to the Civil Court judgment and decree. 3. A revision was preferred by the opposite party No.4 vide Consolidation Revision No.205 of 1996. It is alleged that the Revisional authority reversed the order passed by the original authority as well as the appellate authority in non-considering the facts and materials available on record and in complete ignorance to the Civil Court judgment and decree. 3. In assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Civil Court decree was obtained involving all the parties including the present opposite party No.4 and the decree in the civil suit remain binding on the consolidation authority so long as it is not varied or reversed by higher forum and further, the consolidation authority has no jurisdiction to hold that the compromise decree in the Civil Court as void and inoperative in law. This apart there is also no finding by the revisional authority in reversal of the finding of the original or appellate authority. 4. On his appearance learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties submitted that for the reasons assigned in the revision, there is no scope for interfering in the impugned order and this apart for the allegation that the opposite party No.4 was not a party to the Civil Suit, the decree passed in the Civil Suit was not binding the opposite party No.4 and therefore, there is no illegality in the observations as well as in the findings of the revisional authority. 5. In spite of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of the opposite party No.4. The appearance or non-appearance of the rest of the opposite parties becomes irrelevant as the opposite party No.4 is the only contesting opposite party in the matter. 6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds that upon consideration of the illegal family settlement between the three brothers ignoring the share of the present petitioner, the petitioner initiated a civil suit involving all his brothers and there is no denial to the fact that the petitioner has obtained a compromise decree involving the title suit bearing No.53 of 1989 declaring one forth share against each of the brother. There is also no dispute that this compromise decree has not been assailed by any of the brother remain confirmed. Law is fairly settled that the decree of Civil Court remain binding on the Consolidation Authority. There is also no dispute that this compromise decree has not been assailed by any of the brother remain confirmed. Law is fairly settled that the decree of Civil Court remain binding on the Consolidation Authority. Under the circumstances, this Court finds, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that so long as the compromise decree remain valid and not reversed by higher forum, the same remain binding on the Consolidation Authority has force. Further looking to the observations of the revisional authority, this Court finds, the revisional authority on an erroneous observation held that the compromise decree obtained in the Title Suit No.53/89 being obtained behind back of the opposite party No.4 remains contrary to the record. Looking to the Civil Court compromise decree, it becomes clear that the father of the opposite party No.4 was a party and a contestant in the Civil Court proceeding. Under the circumstance, this Court finds, the observation of the Consolidation authority holding that the decree of a Civil Court is void, ab initio is also made without having any competency/ jurisdiction with the Consolidation Authority. Accordingly, while interfering in the impugned order, this Court sets aside the revisional order passed in the Consolidation Revision and restores the order passed by the original authority as well as by the appellate authority and allows the writ petition. 7. The writ petition stands allowed. There is no order as to cost.