JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This writ petition has been filed assailing the orders vide Annexures-3 & 5 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer as well as the Commissioner in exercise of power under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958. 2. Short background involved in the case is that the lands in question in Sabik Khat No.27, plot nos.674, 677, 745, 745/1747, 749/1, 752, 753, 754, 755, 870, 1180, 1180/1, 1181, 1243, 1244 and 1331 of an area Ac.9.85 decs. corresponding to Hal khata No.120 plot nos.596, 597, 1609, 1763, 1773, 1774 and 2235 of an area Ac.9.310 decs. of mouza-Khandahata, Tahasil-Biramaharajpur of District-Sonepur are claimed to be the ancestral property of the petitioners and they are going on paying the land revenue in respect of the disputed plots since their forefather and they are also in possession of the property and using the same by cultivating for agricultural purpose. It is stated that on opposite party no.4’s creating disturbance, the petitioners were forced to obtain the Hal record of rights. From the Hal record of rights, the petitioners found that the opposite party no.4 has cunningly managed to get his name along with one Dukhi Pradhan in the record of rights. Consequent upon which, the petitioners filed the Revision Case No.419 of 2000 seeking correction of the record of rights prepared on manipulating attempt of the opposite party no.4 by taking advantage of the ignorance of the petitioners. The petitioners’ further case is that in the year 1929 settlement, the disputed plots were recorded in the name of Sadhu Paradhan S/o-Baikuntha Pradhan, the grandfather of the petitioners with recording in the remark column that the Mrutunjay Pradhan the father of the petitioners was in possession of the property. The petitioners filed the document vide Annexure-1 establishing the above fact. Further case of the petitioners is that all the disputed properties along with their other ancestral properties, were recorded in the name of Mrutunjay S/o-Sadhu Pradhan. At this point of time, in the year 1953 Manika the widow of late Swapna Pradhan and Son of Dutiya Pradhan filed a Title Suit bearing No.37 of 1953 for partition of the ancestral properties following the judgment and decree involving the suit of the year 1954. At this point of time, in the year 1953 Manika the widow of late Swapna Pradhan and Son of Dutiya Pradhan filed a Title Suit bearing No.37 of 1953 for partition of the ancestral properties following the judgment and decree involving the suit of the year 1954. The disputed plots fallen to the plaintiffs’ share and in the forth settlement operation in the year 1970, the same were recorded in the name of Hari Pradhan, W/o-Dutiya Pradhan with a note that she has no power to sell or transfer the disputed properties. It is claimed by the petitioners that Dutiya Pradhan and Hari Pradhan had only one daughter namely Dukhi Pradhan, who died in the year 1999 being unmarried and issueless. Petitioners are the only available person to succeed her properties and they have all surprised to come to know that in the fifth settlement process the opposite party no.4 clandestinely managed to insert his name against the disputed properties as a co-sharer. 3. The opposite party no.4 appearing in the revisions claimed his title over the properties being the adopted S/o-Hira Pradhan while indicating name of his father as Chintamani. The revision was disallowed by the order dated 2.11.2002 thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioners and confirming the recording of the name of the opposite party no.4 in respect of the disputed properties. 4. Petitioners challenged the impugned order vide Annexure-5 involving the revision case No.419 of 2000 on the ground that the impugned order suffers on account of irregularities and infirmities both in facts and law and also an outcome of non-application of judicial mind. Learned counsel for the petitioners also claimed that the findings of the Commissioner that since Dukhi did not challenge the recording of the name of the opposite party no.4 along with her in the final record of rights, the revisional authority has no scope to accept the claim of the petitioners. Petitioners also challenged the finding of the Commissioner that in absence of challenge to the question of adoption in proper court, the Commissioner becomes helpless on the premises that on the death of Dukhi dying issueless leaving behind no successor except the petitioners, the disputed land ought to have been recorded in the name of petitioners. Petitioners also claimed that the opposite party no.4 allthrough mentioned his father as Chintamani Pradhan. Petitioners also claimed that the opposite party no.4 allthrough mentioned his father as Chintamani Pradhan. Under no circumstance, he could have been treated as the S/o-Dutiya Pradhan. It is in the above premises, learned counsel for the petitioners claimed that the revisional order becomes bad and unless the same is interfered with, the petitioners will be seriously prejudiced. 5. In his opposition, learned counsel for the private opposite party on reiterating his stand in the court below submitted that after death of the Sabik recorded tenant, the suit land has been correctly recorded in the name of her daughter Dukhi and adopted son Rabi. It is his further case that Dukhi died in the year 1999 whereas the Hal record of rights was finally published in the year 1996. Dukhi during her lifetime executed a Will in the name of Rabi. Further, referring to the findings of the revisional authority, learned counsel for the private opposite party claimed that there is no infirmity in the impugned order leaving no scope for this Court to interfere in the same. 6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of the documents available on record, this Court finds, in the fifth settlement, the R.O.R. has been prepared in the name of the opposite party no.4 along with Dukhi. The record of rights even though prepared in the year 1996 and in spite of petitioners residing in the same locality at the relevant point of time, there was no challenge to such recording till a revision was filed in the year 2000. Looking to the materials available on record and the discussions of the revisional authority as well as the stand of the parties concerned, this Court finds, the claim of the opposite party no.4 is also based on a development following the claim of adoption and a subsequent Will in favour of the opposite party no.4. From the entire scan of the record, it nowhere appears, either there was any challenge to the adoption or to the Will on the basis of which, the opposite party no.4 takes his claim. Further, the record of rights even though was prepared in the year 1996 jointly in the name of opposite party no.4 and Dukhi but was not challenged till 1999 by objecting such recordings. 7. Further, the record of rights even though was prepared in the year 1996 jointly in the name of opposite party no.4 and Dukhi but was not challenged till 1999 by objecting such recordings. 7. Under the circumstances and for the materials available on record, this Court finds, for the limited scope of consideration by the Commissioner under the Survey and Settlement Act, the Commissioner had no other option than to dismiss the revision on the observation and findings made therein. 8. Under the circumstance, this Court finds no scope to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No cost.