JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This writ petition involves a challenge to the order dated 30.6.2001 passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack in O.L.R. Revision Case No. 42 of 1998 appearing at Annexure-8 where the learned Member, Board of Revenue while allowing the revision under Section 59 (2) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 at the instance of the Collector, Rayagada thereby reversed the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Rayagada in O.L.R. Revision Case No.2 of 1997 appearing at Annexure-5. 2. Short background involved in the case is that the petitioner Bodepu Vaikuntha Rao filed a petition under Section 36-A of the O.L.R. Act on 3.9.1974 claiming to be the bhag tenant in respect of an area Ac.10.14 decimals of land in village-Indupur and Gudisbandha of the undivided Koraput district belonging to opposite party no.6. Entering into an inquiry, taking evidence of witnesses and considering the rival contention therein, the Revenue Officer, Gunupur passed the final order declaring the land involved to be non-resumable thereby while further declaring that the petitioner has been cultivating the land consequently also fixing compensation and annual rent, the opposite party no.6 was entitled to. Mutation records were accordingly corrected. While the matter stood thus, on 15.11.1975, a suo motu Ceiling Case bearing O.L.R. Case No.420 of 1976 was initiated at the instance of the Revenue Officer-cum-Tahasildar, Gunupur. Depending upon another inquiry report, the village committee report and the order dated 15.11.1975 passed in O.L.R. Case No.18 of 1974, the Revenue Officer dropped the ceiling proceeding thereby excluding the land recorded in favour of the petitioner for the development taken place through O.L.R. Case No.18 of 1974. After a gap of 4 years, on a reference by the Collector of the undivided Koraput district for initiating a revision proceeding against the order dated 15.11.1975 involving a Section 36-A of the O.L.R. proceeding, the learned Member Board of Revenue initiated O.L.R. Revision Case No.77 of 1980. The learned Member, Board of Revenue under the premises of order being passed in O.L.R. Case No.18 of 1974 in connivance of the petitioner and the opposite party no.6 therein while setting aside the order passed in O.L.R. Case No.18 of 1974 directed to re-open the ceiling proceeding vide O.L.R. Case No.420 of 1976 required to be re-determined giving liberty to the parties to lead further evidence. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, the petitioner filed O.J.C.No.2364 of 1982 and this Court by order dated 7.2.1985 in disposal of the above writ directed for consideration of both the cases afresh giving opportunity of further evidence and hearing to both the parties. Upon remand, the 36-A proceeding was concluded by order dated 27.8.1988 holding that the petitioner is not a tenant under the land owner. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Sub-Collector, Gunupur. The appellate authority by order dated 8.5.1991 dismissed the appeal upholding the order of the original authority. A revision was also carried by the petitioner vide Revision No.4 of 1991. The revisional authority by his order dated 21.5.1994, set aside the order of the appellate court and remanded the case to the appellate court for rehearing. The appellate court by order dated 26.2.1997 while dismissing the appeal again upheld the order of the Revenue Officer dated 27.8.1988. Petitioner again moved Revision No.2 of 1997 and the revision was allowed by the revisional authority by the order dated 31.3.1998 thereby setting aside the order involving O.L.R. Case No.18 of 1974 and the order dated 26.3.1997 in O.L.R. Appeal No.9 of 1988. Being aggrieved by the order dated 31.3.1998, the Collector, Rayagada requested for a reference under Section 59(2) of the O.L.R. Act, 1960 and the learned Member, Board of Revenue accepting the reference instituted Revision Case No.42 of 1998 on the file of learned the Member, Board of Revenue. This revision being allowed on 30.6.2001, petitioner being aggrieved by the same filed the present writ petition. 3. Reiterating the facts and pleas taken by the petitioner all through, Sri C.A. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contested the order passed under Section 59(1) of the O.L.R. Act on the premises that the proceeding under Section 59(2) of the O.L.R. Act was not maintainable for being considered the dispute already involved in a proceeding under Section 59(1) of the O.L.R. Act and as such prayed this Court for interference in the order passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue in exercise of power under Section 59(2) of the O.L.R. Act and confirming the order passed by the Collector in the revision under Section 59(1) of the O.L.R. Act. Referring to decisions rendered in the cases of Surendra Kumar Patjoshi and others v. Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack and another, 2005 (1) OLR 248 and Surya Kumar Behera v. Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack and others, 1992 (1) OLR 384 Sri Rao contested the impugned order under the premises that the decisions referred to by him have a direct bearing in the case at hand and thus claimed for allowing the writ petition. 4. Sri K.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand objecting the submissions made by Sri C.A. Rao referring to the provisions at sections 59(1) and 59(2) of the O.L.R. Act submitted that for the special power conferred on the Board of Revenue to exercise revisional jurisdiction involving the order of any authority under him contended that the initiation of the revision under Section 59(2) of the O.L.R. Act is very much maintainable. Taking this Court to the citations cited by Sri C.A. Rao, Sri K.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the decisions referred to hereinabove involving the facts altogether different than the case at hand have no application to the case at hand and Sri K.K. Mishra thus prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. There being no dispute in the facts involving the case and thedevelopments taken up until initiation of the 59 (2) proceeding by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, the order passed therein, this Court now proceedsstraightway to take up the issues involvingherein suchas ; If the revision under Section 59 (2) of the O.L.R. Act at the instance of the Board of Revenue was maintainable for the disposal of the proceeding under Section 59 (1) of the O.L.R. Act? and If so whether the order passed in the proceeding under Section 59 (2) of the Act is justified? For better appreciation, this Court likes to deal with Section 59(1) and (2) of the O.L.R. Act, which reads as follows: 59. Revision-(1) The prescribed authority, may on application by any party aggrieved by any order passed in an appeal under any provision of this Act filed within the prescribed period revise such order. For better appreciation, this Court likes to deal with Section 59(1) and (2) of the O.L.R. Act, which reads as follows: 59. Revision-(1) The prescribed authority, may on application by any party aggrieved by any order passed in an appeal under any provision of this Act filed within the prescribed period revise such order. (2) The Board of Revenue may, on being moved in that behalf by the Collector of a district of by the Land Reforms Commissioner revise any order passed by any authority under this Act within twenty-five years from the date of such order. Now taking up the first issue involved herein, reading of the Section 59(1) of the O.L.R. Act leaves no doubt that the revision is taken up on an application by any party aggrieved by any order passed in an appeal under any provision of the Act. Similarly, Section 59(2) of the Act speaks authorising the Board of Revenue either himself or being aggrieved in that behalf by the Collector of the district or by the Land Reforms Commissioner asking for revision of any order passed by any authority under the act but within 25 years from the date of such orders. 6. For the background involved herein, Sri C.A. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the disposal of a proceeding under section 59(1) of the O.L.R. Act, no further revision under Section 59(2) of the Act will lie. Whereas Sri K.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that for the special power with the learned Board of Revenue and for a request for reference by the Collector of the District, there is no wrong committed by the Board of Revenue on initiating a revision under Section 59(2) of the O.L.R. Act for the asking of the Collector of the district for a further decision involving the matter. This Court finds the question as to whether proceeding under Section 59(2) of the O.L.R. Act is maintainable or not has been gone into in some form or other by this Court. This Court finds the question as to whether proceeding under Section 59(2) of the O.L.R. Act is maintainable or not has been gone into in some form or other by this Court. In a decision of this Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Patjoshi and others (supra) for the Member, Board of Revenue having already exercised its power under Section 59(2) of the O.L.R. Act, a Division Bench of this Court came to observe that once the Board of Revenue exercises its power of revision under Sub-section (2) of Section 59 of the O.L.R. Act and reaches finality, further interference with the same does not arise and as such there applied principle of res judicata to the case decided therein. For the change in the facts and circumstance involving the case at hand, this Court finds above decision is not applicable to the case at hand. Now looking to the decision vide Surya Kumar Behera (supra), this is a case involving once a request of reference was turned down by the Board of Revenue, no further reference under Section 59(2) of the O.L.R. Act would have been entertained by the Member, Board of Revenue. This decision has also no application to the case at hand on the same analogy. For no previous decision by the Board of Revenue before initiation of the proceeding under Section 59(2) of the O.L.R. Act, this Court observes the revision before the Board of Revenue was very much maintainable and answers the question no.1 accordingly. 7. This Court then proceeds to decide the question no.2, the revision undertaken by the Board of Revenue Orissa appears to have been decided by the Collector. In paragraph-4, the Board of Revenue simply observed that the Standing Counsel appearing for the Collector supported the grounds of revision elaborately made out by the Collector and the learned Member, Board of Revenue proceeded to take a decision on the technicalities raised by the advocates for the opposite parties therein. In paragraph-4, the Board of Revenue simply observed that the Standing Counsel appearing for the Collector supported the grounds of revision elaborately made out by the Collector and the learned Member, Board of Revenue proceeded to take a decision on the technicalities raised by the advocates for the opposite parties therein. Entire scan of the order under Section 59(2) of the O.L.R. Act impugned herein, this Court nowhere finds the discussion on the claim of the Collector involved therein except assessment of the case on the basis of pleas and the submissions of the Collector in the report seeking for reference and some informations available through lower court records.Further, on the basis of information available from the inquiry conducted by the then Additional District Magistrate on the direction of the learned Member, Board of Revenue. Thus, it appears, there is no consideration of the claim of the Collector initiating the revision vis-à-vis the case of the opposite parties. The rejection of claim of the petitioner herein before the Board of Revenue appears to have been done on presumption and absolutely in absence of a consideration of the same. 8. Under the circumstances, this Court finds, there is no fair trial of the case involving the revision under Section 59(2) of the O.L.R. Act for which this Court has no hesitation in interfering in the impugned order at Annexure-8 and remanding the matter to the learned Member, Board of Revenue for consideration of the case afresh but however involving the parties contesting therein. Since the matter is decided in presence of the petitioner and the state Counsel representing the Collector, both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Member, Board of Revenue by 1.9.2017 and the learned Member, Board of Revenue is directed to decide the Revision Case No.42 of 1998 afresh by taking a decision in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned and passing the final order within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. 9. The writ petition succeeds but however with an order of remand. Under the circumstances, there is no order as to cost.