JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. - For the common dispute involved in both the writ petitions and for the common prayer made therein, a common argument has been advanced by the counsel for both the sides. Considering commonness in the above proceedings, this Court feels it appropriate to decide both the matters by this common judgment. 2. Both the writ petitions involve challenge to a common judgment dated 4.5.1998 passed in R.C. No.1326 of 1996 along with R.C. No.1327/1996 thereby confirming the judgment of the lower authority dated 12.6.1996 again involving the Consolidation Appeal Nos.58/95 and 61/95 involving Remand Revision Case No.1198/93 and Revision Case No.998/93. 3. Short background involved in the cases is that the final publication of the R.O.R. was made with respect to Khata No.141 in the name of Punei Barik, S/o-Kanhei Barik in stihitiban status on 21.1.1931. On 11.2.1931 certificate of final publication of the R.O.R. relating to case land was signed with description therein as Mouza-Bhodal, P.S.-Jagatsinghpur, Thana No.125, Dist.-Cuttack, Khata No.141, Plot No.96, Ac.0.09 dec., Plot No.97- Ac.0.05 decimal, Plot No.95/831, Ac.0.04 dec., Plot No.95 Ac.0.06 decimal (Total Ac.0.24 decimal) decimals recorded in the name of Punei Barik, S/o-Kanhei Barik. Similarly, Khata No.129, Plot No.806, Area Ac.0.12 decimals was also recorded as such. It is stated that Punei Barik was all along in possession over the whole plot over the total area of Ac.0.36 decimals. On 30.11.1931 Punei Barik sold an area of Ac.0.36 decimals of land for a sum of Rs. 84/- under Khata No.141, Area Ac.0.24 decimals and Ac.0.12 decimals under Khata No.129 through R.S.D. No.3710 dated 30.11.1931 to Bimbali Dei, W/o-Raghu Pradhan, Chitra Dei, W/o-Narasingh Pradhan and one Ananta Pradhan, S/o- Kanhei Pradhan. However, possession of the said land was not transferred. Bimbali Dei, Chitra Dei and Ananta Pradhan the so called vendees declined to honour and accept the sale transaction made through the sale deed dated 30.11.1931 and accordingly all of them had made an endorsement in the backside of the sale deed disclosing inter alia that "ATRA KABALA LIKHITA JARASAMAN TANKA AMBHEMANE BAYAKU DEI NAPARIBARU ATRA KABALA BAYAKU WAPAS KALU", in other words, with indication that for their being unable to make the payment involved, they make return of the sale deed to the vendor, the original recorded owner and thereby relinquished whatever right accrued through such sale deed in the meantime. On 22.5.1932 Punei Dei sold Ac.0.26 decimals of land under Khata No.141, Plot Nos.96, 97, 95/831 and 95 to one Indramani Biswal a co-sharer of deceased petitioner Mahendra Biswal vide registered sale deed No.2053 dated 22.5.1932. Thereby Punei Dei sold the balance land measuring Ac.0.12 decimals under Khata No.129, Plot No.806, to Raghu, Narasingh and Ananta. Raghu Pradhan, husband of Bimbali Dei, Narasingh Pradhan, husband of Chitra Dei and Ananta Pradhan, S/o- Kanhei Pradhan being involved in the previous sale transaction relinquished in the meantime. On 25.2.1964 a partition was effected between Mahendra and Indramani where Mahendra Biswal got the suit land to the extent of an area Ac0.24 decimals under Khata No.141, out of which Mahendra Biswal sold an area of Ac.0.12 decimals in plot no.96, an area of Ac.0.07 out of Ac.0.09 decimals of land, Plot No.97, Ac.0.05 decimals to Rama Pradhan and Sudam Pradhan sons of Raghu Pradhan and Bimbali vide R.S.D. No.3338 dated 17.4.1970. Whereafter an area to the extent of Ac.0.12 decimals still remained in possession of the petitioner. Record of Rights was prepared mistakenly showing Ac.10 decimals in place of Ac.12 decimals in the name of Mahendra Biswal. Consequently, Mahendra Biswal filed a petition under Section 9(3) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (in short hereinafter be called as "O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act") to record the aforesaid land exclusively in his name deleting the name of Gunamani Biswal, which was allowed. In a subsequent development on 17.2.1990 Rama Pradhan and Sudam Pradhan sons of Bimbali and Raghu Pradhan purchased Ac0.01.4 kadi of land from Mahendra Biswal the petitioner vide R.S.D. No.512 dated 17.2.1990. As a consequence, said Rama and Sudam Pradhan, the Opposite party nos.4 & 5 to the writ petition filed an objection under Section 15 of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act, which was allowed, but however, reducing the area of the petitioner to Ac.0.08 decimals. Bimbali Dei alongwith others filed a revision U/s.37(1) of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. relying on the sale deed 30.11.1931 before the Commissioner of Consolidation. This revision case was registered as R.C. Case No.1158/92, which matter was remanded alongwith R.C. No.998/1993 to the Consolidation officer, Niali for fresh disposal. Bimbali Dei alongwith others filed a revision U/s.37(1) of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. relying on the sale deed 30.11.1931 before the Commissioner of Consolidation. This revision case was registered as R.C. Case No.1158/92, which matter was remanded alongwith R.C. No.998/1993 to the Consolidation officer, Niali for fresh disposal. Both the remand revision cases were heard and disposed of by the Consolidation Officer, Niali directing to record the land measuring Ac.0.04 decimals in plot no.345,346, 347 in the name of Mahendra Biswal and Naba Kishore Biswal in Sikkim status and plot no.348 Ac.0.04 decimals was exclusively recorded in the name of Mahendra Biswal. Mahindra Biswal filed a Consolidation Appeal No.58/1995 whereas Bimbali and others filed Consolidation Appeal No.61 of 1995 against the order dated 31.8.1995 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Niali. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in disposal of both the appeals dismissed the appeal no.58/1995 filed by Mahendra and allowed the appeal vide appeal no.61 of 1995 filed by the Bimbali & others. As a consequence, Mahindra filed two revisions registered as Consolidation Revision No.1326/1996 and Consolidation Revision No.1327/1996 before the Commissioner, Consolidation against the order dated 12.6.1996 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in appeals referred to hereinabove. Both the revisions were dismissed confirming the judgment dated 12.6.1996 passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation and thereby disallowing the prayer of the petitioner resulting filing of both the above writ petitions. 4. Questioning the impugned orders at Annexures-5 & 6, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions on reiteration of his clients' stand in the forums below conjointly submitted that both the orders are arbitrary, illegal and otherwise also bad in law. Shri Tripathy further contended that the R.S.D dated 30.11.1931 has lost its sanctity being not acted upon in any manner and for the private opposite parties' admitting the right title and interest of the petitioner acknowledging their possession by purchasing the said land through the registered sale deed dated 17.4.1970 and 17.2.1990, a right being followed through the sale deed dated 22.5.1932, it is contended that by both the courts below have failed in appreciating the matters in its proper spirit and thereby resulting the bad and illegal impugned orders. 5. 5. It is also contended that the vendor Punei Dei for regaining his title and interest by virtue of the endorsement in the sale deed dated 30.11.1931 had the absolute right for the subsequent sales in favour of the transferees. It is, in the above premises, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions requested this Court for interfering in both the impugned orders by setting aside both the set of impugned orders. 6. Shri Sachidananda Sahoo, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.4 to 7, in his opposition to the challenge to the impugned orders on reiteration of his clients' stand althrough in the forums below, advancing his argument submitted rebutting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the sale deed No.3710 date 30.11.1931 has not been rebutted. Learned counsel for the private opposite parties further contended that when Punei Dei has alienated the land in favour of the Bimbali Dei, Chitra Dei and Ananta Pradhan through R.S.D. dated 30.11.1931, he has no right, title and interest to further alienate the same. The petitioners' claim of their title since based on such illegal transaction has no legal sanctity. It is also further contended that Sikkim right is neither heritable nor transferable under this custom. Shri Sahoo, in the above circumstance submitted that above legal aspect of the matter having been properly understood by both the lower forums, both of them have arrived in right conclusion requiring no scope for interference in the same. 7. Shri K.K. Mishra, learned State Counsel taking this Court to the discussion and the findings involving the impugned orders involving the writ petitions while supporting the same, submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order requiring any interference in the same. It is also contended that for the concurrent finding of facts by both the courts below, there is no scope for this Court for interfering in the impugned orders. 8. It is also contended that for the concurrent finding of facts by both the courts below, there is no scope for this Court for interfering in the impugned orders. 8. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and taking into account the rival claim, this Court finds, the appellate court has rightly framed the important issue i.e. "as to whether the registered sale dated 30.11.1931 executed by Punei Dei to Bimbali Dei & two others is valid or the registered sale deed dated 22.5.1932 executed by Punei Dei to Indramani for the selfsame land is valid or not." It is, in the process of consideration of the above vital issue, this Court observes, the lower appellate court after entering into detailed discussion on the facts involving the case and after taking into consideration the endorsement in the sale deed No.1931 dated 30.11.1931 to the effect that the sale deed was returned for non-payment of consideration money, found through the sale in the year 1931, title of the disputed land measuring Ac.0.36 decimals of Sabik Khata No.140 & 129 had already been passed validly to Bimbali & others the vendees from Punei Dei. This Court observes that the subsequent endorsement made on the sale deed dated 30.11.1931, showing sale deed for nonpayment of the consideration amount cannot therefore divest the title of the disputed land from Bimbali Dei and others to Punei Dei. It is on the premises that the sale deed of the year 1931 confirming the title of the vendees, the vendor lost her title over the disputed property and the subsequent endorsement has nothing to do with it. This Court also observes, such endorsement cannot invalidate the passing of a title by entering into any subsequent sale deed. The appellate authority therefore, rightly observed, the sale deed of 1931 remains valid so long as it is not declared invalid by any competent court of law. This finding of the appellate authority has been confirmed by the revisions authority. This Court is of the opinion that the revisional authority remains justified in its such finding. For the concurrent findings of both the authorities below, it is observed that there is no illegality in holding the sale deed dated 30.11.1931 as valid. As such, the sale deed of the year 1932 automatically becomes invalid. This Court is of the opinion that the revisional authority remains justified in its such finding. For the concurrent findings of both the authorities below, it is observed that there is no illegality in holding the sale deed dated 30.11.1931 as valid. As such, the sale deed of the year 1932 automatically becomes invalid. Under the circumstances, this Court finds, the impugned judgments have no scope for interference in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As a consequence, both the writ petitions stand dismissed. However, there is no order as to cost. Final Result : Dismissed