JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. Since all the Writ Petitions involve challenge to the same order and since the parties have common set of submissions, on consent of parties this Court takes up all the matters together and decides all the Writ Petitions involved herein by this common judgment. 2. Short background involved in this case is that taking the disputed property involving all the L.E. Cases vide L.E. Case no.429/03, L.E. Case no.430/03 and L.E. Case No.431/03 the parties entered into a Suit bearing T.S. No.64/49. The suit was decreed and as a result of the decree involving such suit disputed property involved herein fell to the share of father of the petitioner. The matter ultimately brought to the level of High Court, where the matter finally ended with a compromise between the parties. It is while the matter stood thus and after the dispute between the parties involving the disputed property were set at rest, after a long time and after so many decades the proceedings were initiated vide L.E. Case no.429/03, L.E. Case no.430/03 and L.E. Case No.431/03. Upon receipt of notice involving all the three L.E. Cases the opposite party therein filed his objection as find place at page 21 of the W.P.(C) No.3100 of 2015. It is needless to indicate here that similar response have been filed by the petitioner involving the L.E. Cases indicated hereinabove. Through the objection the petitioner not only claimed his right over the property through the compromise decree involving the T.S. No.64/49, but also claimed that for the possession of the land in favour of the petitioner through a compromise decree, there was no question of interfering in the right, title and interest of the petitioner by exercise of power under the OPLE Act. All the three L.E. Cases appear to have already been disposed of on contest by entering into the orders at three stages. By the order dated 6.09.2004 where the Tahasildar recommended the matter for settlement of the land in favour of the petitioner involving all the three plots involved herein to the Sub-Collector and on the acceptances of such recommendation the matter was again taken up and decided by 4 order dated 8.4.2005 wherein the Tahasildar again after entering into another set of inquiry settled the lands in favour of the petitioner and also assessed the revenue at Rs.137.65/-, Rs.450/- and Rs.107.10/- respectively. It is stated here that the L.E. Case no.429/03 involves Khata No.428 plot no.258 area Ac.0.19 decimals, L.E. Case no.430/03 involves Khata no.180 plot no.180 & 226 Ac.0.49 & Ac.0.21 decimals Ac. 0.70 decimals Khata No.159 plot no.332 Ac.0.06 decimals plot no.330 Ac.0.15 decimals and plot no.326 Ac.0.08 decimals and L.E. Case no.431/03 involves Khata No.185 plot no.385 area Ac.0.03 dec. In a subsequent order dated 27.1.2006 the Tahasildar in confirmation of his own order dated 6.09.2004 and 8.04.2005 reaffirmed the order of settlement involving the disputed property in favour of the petitioner for final assessment of the rent involving the disputed property. It appears, at this stage of the matter the proceeding was again undertaken by the Tahasildar Simulia and by order dated 30.06.2006 the Tahasildar was pleased to reject the prayer of the petitioner on the premises that he failed to produce any documentary evidence to settle the land in his favour vide Annexure-3. This order being challenged in appeal the appellate authority also dismissed the appeal on the same premises of non-production of the records by the petitioner and also for not satisfying his case of peaceful possession for more than 30 years. Consequently the OPLE Revision No.2/10 preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed. Similarly involving the L.E. Case No.430/03, L.E. Case no.429/03 and L.E. Case No.431/03 the petitioner appears to have filed OPLE Appeal No.53/2006, OPLE Appeal No.54/2006 and OPLE Appeal No.55/2006 and consequent upon dismissal of appeals revisions under the OPLE Act were filed and such Revisions were dismissed by the order vide Annexure-1 on confirmation of the order passed by the appellate authority. Hence, the above three Writ Petitions. 3. Shri A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner advancing a common argument involving all the three writ petitions taking this Court to the objection filed by the petitioner in all the three proceedings including one ended with in a writ petition and also taking this Court to the plea taken therein submitted that the petitioner has a clear objection to the initiation of the proceeding on the premises of existence of a civil court compromise decree which has gone up to the High Court level and also a challenge to the initiation of the proceeding on the ground of maintainability for existence of civil court compromise decree. Shri Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner also taking this Court to the entire order sheet of the Tahasildar more particularly taking this Court to the order dated 6.09.2004, 8.04.2005 and 27.1.2006 contended that for the involvement of the Tahasildar and acceptance of the recommendation of the Tahasildar by the Sub-Collector in exercise of power U/s.8-A of the OPLE Act, the 6 settlement aspect has already been closed by the final order dated 27.01.2006 by the Tahasildar involving the land involved in the encroachment cases. It is, in the above premises Shri Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court to the impugned orders vide Annexures-3, 2 & 1 respectively submitted that the subsequent Tahasildar, the appellate authority and the revisional authority have not only failed to exercise their legal mind looking to the background involved there but it also appears to have passed the impugned orders mechanically. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the three impugned orders appears to have been passed also without getting into the previous development taken place again involving the same land through the orders dated 6.09.2004, 8.04.2005 and 27.1.2006. In the above premises Shri Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed this Court for interfering in the impugned orders vide Annexures-3, 2 & 1 and setting aside the same. 4. Shri B. Behera, learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand, taking this Court to the observation of the Tahasildar, the observation of the Sub-Collector as well as the revisional authority submitted that for the disclosures made therein on the aspect of petitioner's failing to produce any document to support his case and also not being able to establish 7 his case of long possession for 30 years, there appears, there is no infirmity in the impugned orders involved herein. Shri B. Behera however did not dispute to the existence of the orders dated 6.09.2004, 8.04.2005 and 27.1.2006 involving the very issue establishing a case of settlement of land in favour of the petitioner, and also not disputed to the allegation that there is no challenge to all the three orders dated 6.09.2004, 8.04.2005 and 27.1.2006 by any concerned. 5. XXX XXX XXX 6. 5. XXX XXX XXX 6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and taking into account the detailed discussions made hereinabove, this Court finds, there is no dispute that the property involved herein previously involved in T.S. No.64/49 before the competent court of law. There is again no dispute that there was a decree involving the T.S. No.64/49 favouring the petitioner's father. There is no dispute to the fact that the property fell to the share of the father of the petitioner through the final decree which decree ultimately ended with in a compromise decree. From the submissions of the respective parties, this Court finds, there is no further challenge to the compromise decree ultimately closing of the matter in the High Court level for all time to come. It is, at this stage of the matter, this Court keeping in mind the submissions of respective parties, the facts involved herein and going through the order sheet of the Tahasildar, finds by order dated 6.09.2004, 8 8.04.2005 and 27.1.2006 the Tahasildar passed the following orders: "6.09.2004. L.E. Case No.429/03 This is taken up today. This case is initiated as per 'G' form furnished by R.I. Ada for encroachment of Ac.0.19 dec. of land under Khata No.428 correspondence to plot no.258 in village Chandanpur. The encroachment has been made by Alok Prasad Bose, S/o. Gyanandra of Village Ada. Accordingly notice u/s.7 read with 9 A(Ka) was issued to show cause as to why the encroacher would not be penalized for unauthorized encroachment of the case land. In response the encroacher has filed a show cause claiming the encroached land as his own sthitiban land in view of the final decree passed on 25.7.81 by subordinate Judge 1st Court Cuttack in T.S. No.64/1949 which was instituted on 2.09.1949. After along contest this T.S. case was dragged to Hon'ble high Court Orissa Cuttack and finally decided on 6.11.02 in Civil Revision No.436/1998, through a compromise made among the share holder of the plaintiff and defendants. As per said compromise made before the Hon'ble High Court in Civil Revision No.426/1998 the encroached land comes to share of the present encroacher. After along contest this T.S. case was dragged to Hon'ble high Court Orissa Cuttack and finally decided on 6.11.02 in Civil Revision No.436/1998, through a compromise made among the share holder of the plaintiff and defendants. As per said compromise made before the Hon'ble High Court in Civil Revision No.426/1998 the encroached land comes to share of the present encroacher. Before we arrive at any conclusion it is forthcoming that the R.I. Ada in his report furnished on 10.11.03 which forms apart of case record indicates that as per M.S. R.O.R. publication the case land was finally published as per Bebandobasta bearing Khata No.366 with plot no.397 with an area Ac. 0.18 being classified as Sarad I and Bebandabasti Khata holder were Gyanendra Bose, and others. So it is evident from the said publication that after the vesting the land was not settled to rent and cess as a result the present encroacher is to pay back rent cess and Salami etc. as per prescribed rated as per vesting. Apart in view of declaration made by the Civil Court in regard to right, title, possession and interest of the case land in favour of the encroacher through the civil court does not have jurisdiction to declare any bodies right, title possession and interest when the land has not been settled to rent either by settlement or Revenue Officer and above all the title suit which has been filed prior to vesting of the estate for which cause of action of the level of settlement and Revenue authority do not have any modus operendi. All the cause of action on the part of settlement and Revenue authority starts from the date of the vesting of the estate to Govt. As because to title suit was initiated prior to vesting for which the land involved in title suit automatically stands abated within the jurisdiction of Revenue law in spite of land vested to Govt. As such I hold that the lands is to recorded in favour of the Raiyat who treated as encroacher in this case from the date of vesting of the estate and in view of pre-reconrding of the land as Bebondabasta for which the raiyat is to pay rent B. cess, Salami till to date. As such I hold that the lands is to recorded in favour of the Raiyat who treated as encroacher in this case from the date of vesting of the estate and in view of pre-reconrding of the land as Bebondabasta for which the raiyat is to pay rent B. cess, Salami till to date. The raiyat is liable to pay back rent and back cess and salami as calculated below to the Nazir of this office after confirmation of orders by the Sub-Collector, Balasore. 8.4.05. This record is taken up today. The Revenue Officer, Sub-Collector Office, Balasore has returned the case record in his letter No.115, dt.15.2.05 with objection that the fate of the L.E. Case No.349/95-96 booked earlier has not been discussed in the present case. I have called for report from R.I. Ada which is attached to the case record. From R.I. report it reveals that the encroacher is in possession in the suit land since 1974-75, which is long period of more than 30 years. No eviction order has been passed in L.E. Case No.349/95-96. When present encroachment case has not been concluded initiation of further L.E. Case does not felt necessary. Under the above circumstances I hold that the land is to be recorded in favour of Raiyat who treated as encroacher in this case from the date of vesting of the estates and in view of the prerecording of the land as Bebondabasti for which the Rayata is pay Back rent. Back Cess Salami till to date. The Raiyat is to pay Bank Rent & Bank Cess and Salami as calculated below to the Nazir of this Office after confirmation of order by the Sub-Collector, Balasore. SCHEDULE OF LAND Mouza:- Chandanpur Name of Raiyat Khata Plot Kisam Area back Rent Back Cess Alock Pr. Bose S/o. Late Gyanendra Bose Caste:- KAYASTA. Village:- Ada. Dist.-Balasore 428 258 Ad-I A0.19. - - Back Rent from 1953-54 to 2004-05 Rent:-Rs.9.35 Back Cess from 1953-54 to 2004-05 Cess:-28.30 Salami:- Rs.100.00 Total Rs.137.65 Resubmit the case record to Sub-Collector, Balasore for confirmation of orders after appeal period is over. 27.01.06 This case is put up today. Spot enquiry conducted by me in presence of villagers with petitioner which memorandum is attached to this case record. No objection has been received from any quarters. Point wise objection raised by the Sub-Collector, Balasore have been complied below:- 1. 27.01.06 This case is put up today. Spot enquiry conducted by me in presence of villagers with petitioner which memorandum is attached to this case record. No objection has been received from any quarters. Point wise objection raised by the Sub-Collector, Balasore have been complied below:- 1. Orders dated 8.10.03, 10.11.03, 22.12.03 and 13.1.04 of Tahasildar has already been signed. 2. The Kisam of land has been mentioned as Sarad-I in order sheet, 'G' form & 9(1) notice, because it was records in M.S. Operation as Sarad Kisam and petitioner has also been used the case land as Sarad in Consolidation operation the land has been recorded in Govt. Khata. Hence, the kisam has not been mentioned in R.K. report. 3. In Civil Court the order has been passed in M.S. R.O.R. and the settlement proposal is basing on the Hal R.O. as per the Consolidation operation. The Hal Sabik comparison report with sketch map has also been submitted by R.I. Ada previously which is part of this case record that M.S. Plot No.397 A0.18 corresponds to hal consolidation plot no.258 A0.19. Hal Sabik comparison information sheet Xerox Copy and hal Sabik R.O.R. Xerox copies are attached herewith for information. 4. Sport enquiry memorandum has also been filed in case record. The case land was Bebondabasta status in M.S. operation and R.O.R. was published in favour of the present petitioner. After consolidation operation it has been recorded in Govt. Khata. Hence the petitioner is liable to pay back rent, Cess and Salami for the interest of Govt. if the land will be settled in his favour. 5. XXX XXX XXX 6. Nothing to comply. The case records are re-submitted to Sub-Collector. Balasore for kind confirmation of order passed on 6.9.04." Reading of the aforesaid three orders, it becomes clear that there is not only complete exercise of power by the OPLE Authority under the provisions of the Sections-4, 5, 6 & 7 but there is also exercise of power U/s.8-A of the Act by the Sub-Collector. Balasore for kind confirmation of order passed on 6.9.04." Reading of the aforesaid three orders, it becomes clear that there is not only complete exercise of power by the OPLE Authority under the provisions of the Sections-4, 5, 6 & 7 but there is also exercise of power U/s.8-A of the Act by the Sub-Collector. For there being complete exercise of power under the Act more particularly in exercise of power U/s.8-A of the Act involving a matter of settlement and there being no challenge to the above orders, this Court observes, once the proceeding for settlement of the land is concluded and unless the order therein are challenged in higher forum, the subsequent Tahasildar is/are not competent to interfere in such orders. Further looking to the orders passed on 6.09.2004, 8.04.2005 and 27.1.2006, it is observed in the circumstance, the only course left with the Tahasildar was to receive the rent so assessed by him by the order dated 8.04.2005 and 27.1.2006 and to proceed for correction of the R.O.R. It is at this stage of the matter considering the order vide Annexure-3 this Court finds, subsequent Tahasildar completely ignored all the above development through the order dated 6.09.2004, 8.04.2005 and 27.1.2006 and passed the order vide Annexure-3 in the respective cases without even referring to the orders passed by his predecessor and further acceptance of the recommendation by the previous Tahasildar by his superior. This Court accordingly interfering in the orders vide Annexures-1, 2 & 3 in each writ petitions sets aside all the same. For the development through the orders dated 6.09.2004, 8.04.2005 and 27.01.2006 involving all the three cases and considering the difficulty on the part of the petitioner in tendering the rent so assessed by the Tahasildar involved therein by order dated 6.09.2004, 8.04.2005 and 27.1.2006, this Court directs the petitioner to offer rent so assessed involving all the three cases to the respective Tahasildars involving different plots within fifteen days along with a copy of this judgment and in such event, rent offered by the petitioner will be accepted and necessary correction involving the R.O.R. shall also be made by completing all the exercise within one month thereafter. 7. The Writ Petitions succeed. However, there is no order as to cost.