JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. - All these three writ applications have been filed by three writ petitioners involved herein assailing the impugned order at Annexure-13 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation involving Revision Case Nos.754/1988, 365/95 and 366/95 disposed of in a common order in exercise of revisional power under Section 36 of the OCH & PFL Act, 1972. All the three cases though involved common facts and common question of law were heard separately by the appellate forum and disposed of by separate judgments. But however, the three Revisions though instituted involving disposal of three Appeals independently but were heard and disposed of by the revisional forum in the common impugned order giving rise to three writ petitions involved herein. For the involvement of common facts and common dispute, on consent of all the parties, all these three writ petitions are herein taken up together and decided by this common judgment. To avoid confusion, this Court takes a concise brief of facts involving the cases which read as follows :- 2. Objection Case No.2139/1280 involved in Consolidation Appeal Case No.117/84 (against Kadambini Pradhan) and ended in Consolidation Revision No.754/88. Above Objection Case was initiated by Jogeswar Nayak, O.P.2 herein. The other case involving Objection Case No.2967/1899 involved in Consolidation Appeal Case No.20/95 (against Kishore Kumar Agarwalla and Kadambini Pradhan) and ended in Consolidation Revision No.365/95. The third Objection Case No.2968/1900 landed in Consolidation Appeal Case No.19/95 (against Raj Kumar Agarwalla and Kadambini Pradhan) and ended in Consolidation Revision No.366/95. All the Appeals were at the instance of Jogeswar Nayak, whereas the Revisions are by the respective petitioners ended in a reversing revisional order. 3. Facts as borne involving the cases stated herein above are H.S.Khata No.199, H.S. Plot No.135 area Ac.13.75 decimals of Village-Kalamati was under Baleswar Ray-Lambodar Gountia. Gounti system was abolished pursuant to a Notification issued under Section 3 of O.E.A. Act since 1.4.1960. The kisam of the land was mentioned as "other waste land". Finding no tenant, no rent roll was filed and the land ultimately vested in the State free from all encumbrances. Subsequently, H.S. Plot No.135 became several plots during Major Settlement operation and the disputed land relates to M.S. Plot No.653 measuring Ac.0.65 decimals. The kisam of the land was mentioned as "other waste land". Finding no tenant, no rent roll was filed and the land ultimately vested in the State free from all encumbrances. Subsequently, H.S. Plot No.135 became several plots during Major Settlement operation and the disputed land relates to M.S. Plot No.653 measuring Ac.0.65 decimals. During M.S. operation, Lease Case No.48/20 of 1966 was started considering Pravatini Mohanty, as a landless, the disputed Plot No.653 along with some undisputed plots was settled in favour of Pravatini Mohanty wife of Premananda Mohanty following the provision of the O.G.L.S. Act. Consequently, possession was also delivered to Pravatini. While the matter stood thus, O.P.2 filed Rent Case No.20/295 before the A.S.O. alleging, inter alia, that he had got Ac.1.40 decimals under an unregistered lease deed dated 30.8.1935 and by another Patta dated 25.9.1939 involving Ac.4.80 decimals from H.S. Plot No.135. Since the claim was made on the basis of Hat Patta disbelieving the Hat Patta, the claim of the petitioners was turned down but however the Amin's report discloses that no possession since 1966 involving the above land was made in favour of O.P.2, Jogeswar Nayak. On 12.9.1970 final Major Settlement Patta was published in the name of Pravatini Mohanty but in the remarks column forcible possession of O.P.2 was noted. Pravatini was going on paying rent. In the meantime, the C.O. in his order dated 7.5.84 considering the petition under Section 9(1) of Survey & Settlement Act by Kadambini Pradhan allowed the 9(1) proceeding by his order dated 7.5.1984 recording the L.R. Plot No.1509 with an area Ac.0.40 decimals in favour of Kadambini Pradhan. An allegation is being made that this transfer in the year 1980 was effected without permission of the Consolidation Authority as by this time Consolidation operation was already in force in Village-Kalamati. Consolidation Appeal Case No.117 of 1984 being filed, this Appeal was dismissed giving rise to the Consolidation Revision No.754/86 filed by Kadambini and in the meantime, Kadambini transferred the case land in favour of Raj Kumar Agarwalla and Kishore Kumar Agarwalla after entering into the Permission Case No.391/81. Purchasers, Raj Kumar Agarwalla and Kishore Kumar Agarwalla filed Objection Case Nos.2969/1901 and 2968/1900. Since the lands in question were non-consolidable, Objection Cases were allowed in favour of the purchasers and orders were passed to record the land in their favour. Purchasers, Raj Kumar Agarwalla and Kishore Kumar Agarwalla filed Objection Case Nos.2969/1901 and 2968/1900. Since the lands in question were non-consolidable, Objection Cases were allowed in favour of the purchasers and orders were passed to record the land in their favour. In the meantime, Kadambini had already filed Objection Case No.2139/1280 before the Consolidation Officer, Sambalpur to delete the name of Jogeswar. This Objection Case was allowed. Consequently, Jogeswar filed three Appeals bearing Consolidation Appeal No.117/84 against Kadambini involving the Objection Case at the instance of Kadambini, Consolidation Appeal No.20/95 again by Jogeswar involving Kishore Kumar Agarwalla and Kadambini and Consolidation Appeal No.19/95 by Jogeswar against Raj Kumar Agarwalla and Kadambini. All the three Appeals having been dismissed by independent judgments, three Revisions, vide Consolidation Revision Nos.754/88, 366/95 and 365/95 were filed. All the Revisions having been allowed, vide a common order involving Annexure-13 giving rise to file three writ applications indicated herein above. It be stated here that though the Consolidation Revision No.754/1988 involved Jogeswar vrs. Kadambini but however instead of Kadambini filing the writ application bearing O.J.C. No.6014/98, this writ petition is at the instance of Raj Kumar Agarwalla and Kishore Kumar Agarwalla but however making Kadambini as an opposite party. 4. Advancing their submission, Sri N.C.Pati and Sri S.S.Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners respectively submitted that the order of settlement being passed by the competent authority in exercise of power under the O.G.L.S. Act remaining final not only the proceeding of the Civil Court is barred but the other authorities dealing with the consolidation proceeding also are bound by the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. The order of the Revenue Authority having not been challenged, the observation and the finding of the Revisional Authority became final. In the premises that the Revisional Authority failed in understanding the above legal aspect, learned counsel for the petitioners claimed that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the respective petitioners also taking this Court to the findings of the original authority and the reasoning of allowing the Objection Cases contended that the revisional authority, if desired to interfere in the said order, was required to deal with the findings of the original authority being confirmed by the Appellate authority and reversed the same with cogent reason. Both the learned Counsel further submitted that instead of dealing with the findings of the authorities below, the revisional authority on erroneous consideration of some circulars and non-consideration of the other circular governing the field wrongly held that the A.S.O. had no jurisdiction in settling the land, vide Annexure-1. Taking resort to the provision under Section 3(e) of the O.G.L.S. Act and further taking help of the G.O. dated 3.2.1965 G.O. dated 11.5.1964, both the Counsel appearing for the respective petitioners submitted that there appears, there has been mechanical application of mind by the revisional authority in interfering in the orders passed by the lower authorities. It is in the above premises, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the revisional orders suffer, and therefore, requires to be interfered with and set aside. 5. In his opposition, Sri A.K.Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate while supporting the observation and finding of the revisional authority submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order requiring interference in such orders by this Court. 6. Sri R.K.Mohanty, learned senior counsel appearing for the private O.P.-Jogeswar Nayak in all the writ petitions while objecting the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no foundation in such submission and for the creation of right in favour of Jogeswar Nayak on the basis of note of possession at different point of time involving the Record of Rights having not been challenged at appropriate time and for the grant of unregistered lease deed in favour of O.P.2 and the Hatapatta of the years 1935 and 1939 respectively submitted that there has been proper consideration of the issues involved by the revisional authority. Sri Mohanty, learned senior counsel further taking this Court to the G.Os. referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted reading together both the G.Os. nowhere authorises the A.S.O. to settle the land in exercise of power under the O.G.L.S. Act. 7. Sri Mohanty, learned senior counsel further taking this Court to the G.Os. referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted reading together both the G.Os. nowhere authorises the A.S.O. to settle the land in exercise of power under the O.G.L.S. Act. 7. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, the claim of the petitioners though is based on the settlement of land in favour of Pravatini Mohanty way back in 1966 and the subsequent sale by Pravatini in favour of the vendor of the petitioners, the claim of the private O.P.-Jogeswar Nayak is based on recording of possession in his favour involving the disputed land so also some unregistered lease deed as well as Hata Patta of the years 1935 and 1939 respectively. Looking to the provisions in the Estate Abolition Act on the vesting of the land in the State, the ex-intermediary was required to submit Ekapadia in favour of the person in possession. Admittedly, no Ekapadia has been submitted by the ex-intermediary involving the case at hand. Further since Hatapata has no legal status and for no proceeding involving to find out the genuineness of Hatapata, if at all existing cannot create an unfettered right in favour of the holder of the same. This Court accordingly observes that the Hata Patta since has no statutory force cannot create any right in favour of the persons named therein. Further coming to the unregistered deed, this Court finds, the validity of unregistered sale deed having already been considered involving Rent Case No.20/295 at the instance of O.P.2 himself, the proceeding having been rejected and not being challenged any further by O.P.2, the unregistered lease deed also remains unbelievable and unacceptable as well. Looking to the settlement of land in exercise of power under the provision of the O.G.L.S. Act herein at this stage, this Court taking into consideration the observations and the findings of the original authority in deciding the Objection Cases finds, the Objection Cases were allowed giving several reasonings being confirmed by the appellate authority even. The revisional authority while dealing with such dispute strangely enough has not attempted to reverse none of the reasonings by both the original authority as well as the appellate authority. The revisional authority while dealing with such dispute strangely enough has not attempted to reverse none of the reasonings by both the original authority as well as the appellate authority. It is at this stage, taking into consideration the reasoning of the Revisional Authority since based on the analogy that the A.S.O. had no power to deal with the matter and taking into consideration the G.Os. referred to by the respective parties including that referred to by the Revisional Authority, the G.O. relevant for the purpose of settlement of land by the particular authority dated 3.2.1965 from paragraph-4 therein, this Court finds the G.O. reads as follows :- "(4) Under clause (e) of section 3 of the Act Government have power to authorise any officer of Government not below the rank of a Sub-Deputy Collector to dispose of applications for settlement of lands and settle the same. According to paragraph 12 of this Department G.O. No.48597-R, dated the 26th October, 1961 the Tahasildars are the authority competent to decide all settlement of land for agricultural and homestead purposes according to the principles laid down therein. Besides Government have already issued instructions in this Department G.O. No.29953-R, dated the 11th May, 1964 that where settlement operations are in progress the Assistant Settlement Officers will be competent to dispose of encroachment cases and applications for lease of Government land for agricultural and homestead purposes relating to rural areas." Looking to the aforesaid provision, this Court has no hesitation to observe that there is no dispute that the Assistant Settlement Officer is competent to dispose of the application for lease of Government land for agricultural and homestead purpose relating to rural areas. Taking into account the observation of the revisional authority, this Court finds, the revisional authority was thus wrong in appreciating the G.Os. relevant for the purpose and thereby went wrong in holding that the A.S.O. had no power to enter into the settlement of the land involving the Government land. 8. In the above premises, this Court finds, there is wrong appreciation of the issue involved by the revisional authority and as such, the findings arrived at by the revisional authority in all the three Revisions become illegal. As a consequence, the impugned orders at Annexure-13 in all the writ applications are interfered with and set aside. 8. In the above premises, this Court finds, there is wrong appreciation of the issue involved by the revisional authority and as such, the findings arrived at by the revisional authority in all the three Revisions become illegal. As a consequence, the impugned orders at Annexure-13 in all the writ applications are interfered with and set aside. All the writ applications succeed with interference and setting aside the impugned order involving Annexure-13. In the circumstances, there is no order as to cost. Final Result : Allowed