JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. - This writ application involves a challenge to the order of the Settlement Authority passed in R.P. No.3557/1993, a proceeding under Section 15 of the Orissa Survey & Settlement Act, 1958. 2. Short background involved in the case that the suit lands belong to the Deity, Sri Krushna Chandra Thakur. The petitioners are hereditary marfatdars of the Deity and they are performing the sevapuja of the Deity. In this way they are also in exclusive possession of the suit land. One Bhagabat Behera, father of the O.Ps.1 to 3 therein and Jaga Behera, father of O.Ps.4 & 7 and husband of O.P.6 therein, used to take the suit land on temporary lease for one year from the father of the petitioners therein. It is claimed that since 1958 no such lease was granted to them and the suit lands were brought back under the direct cultivation of the petitioners. The O.Ps. therein claimed that since they were bhag tenants, involving a dispute between the petitioners and the private O.Ps., they were declared as bhag tenants (Bhag Chasi), vide judgment and decree in T.S. No.13/1989. It on the premises, the Civil Court is debarred to decide the bhag tenancy status involving a note of possession in preparation of R.O.R. during Hal Settlement operation, the petitioners filing the 15(d) application sought to delete the note of possession in favour of the private O.Ps. from Hal R.O.R.198. The petitioners for the support of the decision to their case claimed that the note of possession in favour of the private O.Ps. should be deleted. The private O.Ps. on their appearance in the Revision proceeding submitted that the Deity involved there being the public Deity, the State should be impleaded as necessary party. As regards the merit involving the case, the private O.Ps. submitted that the suit land vested with the Government on 18.3.1974. The petitioners filed the Debottar Vesting Case No.41/85 before the O.E.A. Collector to settle the lands in favour of the Deity Marfatdar, Harihar Badapanda, petitioner no.1 therein and others illegally but however declaring the O.P.1 as Sikim tenant. O.P.1 filing a certified copy of the order dated 15.12.93 in T.S. No.13/89, the Full Bench decision of this Court in 1984 57 CutLT 1 and another decision involving Second Appeal No.197/1973 published in 76(CLT Notes) claimed the support of the decision to their case. O.P.1 filing a certified copy of the order dated 15.12.93 in T.S. No.13/89, the Full Bench decision of this Court in 1984 57 CutLT 1 and another decision involving Second Appeal No.197/1973 published in 76(CLT Notes) claimed the support of the decision to their case. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the revisional authority decided the Revision thereby directing deletion of the note of possession in favour of the O.Ps. in the Hal R.O.R. showing them as bhagsutre dakhal. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the revisional authority, the petitioners, the O.Ps. therein in the Revision preferred this writ application. 3. Assailing the impugned order, Sri S.Mantry, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that O.Ps.1 & 3 being the survivors of the original Sikim tenants, Bhagabat Behera and Jaga Behera under the Deity before merger of Narasinghpur Estate filed T.S. No.13/89 before the Additional Munsif, Narasinghpur for declaring the plaintiffs as tenants in respect of the suit land and also for directing the Tahasildar for collection of rent, which suit was decreed declaring the plaintiffs, i.e., petitioners no.1 & 3 as tenants in respect of the suit land under the State thereby also directing the Tahasildar to collect rent. Sri Mantry, learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that the Debottar Vesting Case No.41/1985 filed by the Deity, O.P.1 for settlement of the case land in accordance with the executive instruction of the State Government and the order involving the Vesting Case claimed to be a misconceived one but however the order of the Debottar Vesting Case has been declared to be bad in disposal of the Civil Suit with further declaration in favour of the petitioners declaring them to be the tenants even though an appeal, vide T.A No.7/94 was filed, the appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority by judgment dated 21.11.2000. It is under the premises, Sri Mantry, learned counsel for the petitioners claimed that the decision of the revisional authority on the premises that the Civil Court has no such jurisdiction is not only bad but the revisional order is also involved error on the face of record. It is in the above background of the case, Sri Mantry, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed this Court for interference in the impugned order and setting aside the same. 4. It is in the above background of the case, Sri Mantry, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed this Court for interference in the impugned order and setting aside the same. 4. Though notice involving the private O.Ps.1 to 3 was sufficient and a Counsel was appearing for O.Ps.1 to 3 but nobody is present during hearing. 5. Sri Behera, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the O.Ps.4 & 5 taking this Court to the stand of O.Ps.1 to 3 in the court below and to the observation of the original authority submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order requiring this Court to interfere in the matter. 6. Hearing the rival contentions of the parties, this Court before entering into any other aspect as the first step likes to decide whether the revisional authority is justified in ignoring the judgment and decree of the Civil Court involved therein and as a consequence, whether the impugned order is sustainable in the eye of law. It is at this stage, considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, admittedly, there is vesting of the disputed land. There is also no dispute that the civil suit was moved declaring the petitioners to be the tenants and further for a declaration that the order passed in the Debottar Vesting Case No.41/85 as bad and further directing the Tahasildar for receipt of rent. For vesting of the land with the State and for no application for settlement of land under Section 8-A(1) of the O.E.A. Act within statutory period of six months, the land as a natural consequence vested in the State. For the petitioners' continuing in possession on the basis of bhagchasi lease may be for some time as appearing from the case record, this Court finds, the civil suit for declaring the petitioners as occupancy tenants applying the provision under Section 8-A(1) of the O.E.A. Act was very much maintainable. It is in the above circumstance, this Court finds, so long as the judgment and decree involving the Title Suit No.13/89 is not altered, the judgment and decree therein is binding on the settlement authorities. Further the settlement authorities have no authority to declare the judgment and decree involving the Civil Suit as invalid. 7. It is in the above circumstance, this Court finds, so long as the judgment and decree involving the Title Suit No.13/89 is not altered, the judgment and decree therein is binding on the settlement authorities. Further the settlement authorities have no authority to declare the judgment and decree involving the Civil Suit as invalid. 7. In the circumstances, this Court finds, the revisional authority's proceeding in the Revision on the noting that the judgment and decree in the civil suit are void becomes bad resulting the impugned order not sustainable. However, as the matter needs re-adjudication, this Court interfering in the impugned order at Annexure-2 remands the proceeding to the revisional authority for a fresh decision with direction to re-adjudicate the revision proceeding from within the materials already available within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. The petitioners are directed to appear before the revisional authority along with a copy of this judgment within a period of two weeks hence. As directed, the Revision Petition No.3557/93 will be heard afresh after serving notice on the contesting O.Ps. 8. The writ application succeeds setting aside the impugned order, vide Annexure-2 but however with an order of remand. In the circumstance, there is no order as to cost. Final Result : Disposed