JUDGMENT : S.K. Mishra, J. These three writ applications involve similar question of fact and law. Hence, they are disposed of by a common judgment. 2. All the petitioners, namely, Subash Chandra Sahu, Ramesh Chandra Tripathy and Amarendra N.R. Choudhury, have purchased a piece of land from Iswar Chandra Barik. The aforesaid petitioners have preferred the W.P. (C) Nos.15168, 15366 & 19677, all of 2014 challenging the orders dated 03.04.2014 and 13.09.2012 (Annexure-10 & 11), 19.07.2012 and 03.04.2014 (Annexuere-10 & 13), 19.07.2012 and 03.04.2014 (Annexure-9 and 12), respectively, passed by the Settlement Officer, Major Settlement, Jobra, Cuttack (opposite party No.1) thereby giving direction to the lands in question in favour of the G.A. Department, Government of Orissa. 3. Facts of the case are not disputed in W.P. (C) No.15168/ 2014, as per order dated 25.10.1975 in Annexure-1, the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement Cuttack basing on the rent receipt granted by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in 1974 covering the rents for the years, 1970 to 1973 held that it is tantamount to induct the petitioner (Iswar Chandra Barik, S/o. Hadu Barik) from that year before the date of final publication, allowed the revision application and directed that the record of rights be corrected to show the area of Ac.2.20 as belonging to the petitioner. In W.P. (C) No.15366/2014, as per order dated 05.03.1979 in Annexure-2, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar prepared record of rights in the name of Iswar Chandra Barik under Muitation Khata No. 1027/31 for an area measuring Ac.2.20 decimals. In W.P. (C) No.19677/2014, on 15.01.1980 in Annexure-3, the said Iswar Chandra Barik executed two sale deeds, one in favour of Subash Chandra Sahu and one in favour of Amarendra N.R. Choudhury. On 28.01.1980, the said Iswar Chandra Barik executed another sale deed in favour of one Shantilata Tripathy, who is predecessor in interest of Ramesh Chandra Tripathy, one of the petitioners in the writ applications. In view of the registered sale deed executed in favour of Subhas Chandra Sahu, the Tahasildar prepared mutation record of rights in his name and a new patta, bearing khata No.1053/61 was prepared. Similarly, on 28.08.1980, a separate khata was prepared bearing No. 1053160 in favour of Amarendra N.R.Choudhury. The petitioners, Subhas Chandra Sahu and Amarendra NR Choudhury have also paid land revenue to the State. 4. Similarly, on 28.08.1980, a separate khata was prepared bearing No. 1053160 in favour of Amarendra N.R.Choudhury. The petitioners, Subhas Chandra Sahu and Amarendra NR Choudhury have also paid land revenue to the State. 4. In course of current settlement, no final ROR issued in favour of the petitioners, Subhas Chandra Sahu having khata No.3018 in 1997, in favour of Shantilata Tripathy having khata No.3649/22 on 02.08.2004 and in favbur of Amarendra N.R.Choudhury having khata No. 3649/23 on 02.08.2004. However, the G.A. Department preferred appeal against the order of preparation of ROR in the year, 2001 against Subhas Chandra Sahu and in the year, 2007, Settlement Appeal Case No.10/2007 was preferred by the G.A. Department against Shantilata Tripathy and Amarendra N.R. Choudhury. On 03.06.2010 a deed of relinquish was executed by the legal heirs of the Shantilata Tripathy in favour of Ramesh Chandra Tripathy, who is the petitioner in W.P. (C) No.15336/2014. On 19.07.2012, analogous order passed by the Settlement Officer in Appeal Case No. 10/ 2007 showing the applications filed by the G.A. Department. Finally on 03.04.2014, the Settlement Officer recalled the order dated 19.07.2012 stating that the induction of tenancy cannot be decided in R.P. Case No.2379/1975, which cannot settle the Government land in favour of the private persons under Section 15 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958, thereby treating the order passed by the learned Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement as nonest and without jurisdiction That gives rise to these three writ applications. The only point to be determined is that whether the vendor of the petitioners and predecessor in-interest of Ramesh Chandra Tripathy was settled with the land in question, whether the order passed subsequently in the current settlement treating the order passed by the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Cuttack as nonest and illegal and whether the same has to be upheld or it is to be set aside. A bare perusal of the Annexure-1 reveals that the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Cuttack has come to the conclusion that since Iswar Chandra Barik was paying land revenue from 1970-71, i.e. before final publication of the village in the year, 1973, he has been inducted and therefore, he gave orders for settlement of land. This order was never challenged by anybody or the State of Orissa before any authority. This order was never challenged by anybody or the State of Orissa before any authority. Subsequently, in pursuance thereof, the Tahasildar has mutated the land in favour of the vendor of the petitioners, i.e. Iswar Chandra Barik. Thereafter, Iswar Chandra Barik sold different portions of land and District Sub-Registrar has registered the sale deed, stamp duty has been paid and the State Exchequer accepted the stamp duty. Thereafter, the said Iswar Chandra Barik on 15.01.1980 again sold the land to the petitioners in two cases and in one case to the petitioner's predecessor in-interest. Thereafter, in three separate cases, the land has been recorded and separate mutation R.O.R. has been prepared in the names of purchasers from Iswar Chandra Barik. When the matter stood thus, the petitioners were in possession of the land in question and have constructed houses. They are paying land revenue, municipality tax etc. and the current settlement proceeding initiated in the current settlement proceeding, no final or provisional R O R. was issued in favour of Subhas Chandra Sahu, Ramesh Chandra Tripathy and Shantilata Tripathy. However, the G.A. Department filed appeal against the said orders and such appeal was allowed by the Settlement Officer. The Settlement Officer in Appeal Case No. 1413/2006 relating to petitioner, Subhas Chandra Sahu has passed the following order. "Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner claims to record the suit plots in the name of the Petitioner as it was recorded in Govt, holding during 1973-74 Settlement. As per orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Harapriya Bisoi v. State and Brundaban Sharma v. State, the local Tahasildar has no jurisdiction to settle any Govt, land in favour of private person under O.E.A. Act without obtaining approval from Board of Revenue. In the instant case, the lower court has recorded the suit land in favour of the respondent by virtue of orders of the Tahasildar passed in OEA Case in favour of the vendor of the respondent which is void abinitio and the same need not be challenged. So the Settlement Authority should not accept the illegal and void Jamabandi created by the Tahasildar in favour of the respondent vendor. Besides that the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar has also no jurisdiction to correct the R.O.R. and open the Jamabandi after 3 (1) Notification under OSS & S Act, which was issued in the year, 1975." 5. So the Settlement Authority should not accept the illegal and void Jamabandi created by the Tahasildar in favour of the respondent vendor. Besides that the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar has also no jurisdiction to correct the R.O.R. and open the Jamabandi after 3 (1) Notification under OSS & S Act, which was issued in the year, 1975." 5. As far as Ramesh Chandra Tripathy and marendra N.R. Choudhury are concerned, the Appeal Case No. 10/2007 was disposed of on 19.07.2012. The Settlement Officer, in fact, sat over the order passed by the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement and held that as per the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brundaban Sharma and Harapriya Bisoi v. State, mere collection of rent does not entitle to a person to acquire the right, title and interest for tenancy right. Hence, he ordered that Jamabandi prepared by the Tahasildar is without jurisdiction and void abinitio. Later on, on an application for review, on 03.04.2014, the learned Settlement Officer held that the order has been passed by the learned Commissioner in the absence of the G.A. Department and the revisional court cannot set aside on land under Section 15 of the O S.S. Act and, therefore, directed in all the cases to prepare the record of rights in the name of G.A. Department. 6. From the conspectus of the facts available on record, it is seen that the vendor of the petitioners i.e. Iswar Chandra Barik was in possession of the land in question and he was paying land revenue from 1970 to 1973. On the basis of his possession, the learned Commissioner held that he has been inducted as a tenant and directed for preparation of record of rights. Therefore, record of rights has been prepared in the name of Iswar Chandra Barik. The mutation has not been challenged by the State in any forum. He was in the possession of the land. Then, he executed three separate sale deeds in favour of the petitioners and one Shantilata Tripathy, who is predecessor in-interest of Ramesh Chandra Tripathy. The stamp duty was paid by the vendor and the same has been accepted by the State. Therefore, in three separate mutation applications, the purchasers have been recorded as the tenancy having Stitiban right over the land in question. The stamp duty was paid by the vendor and the same has been accepted by the State. Therefore, in three separate mutation applications, the purchasers have been recorded as the tenancy having Stitiban right over the land in question. The provisional record of right has been prepared in favour of the petitioners in the year, 2004. After three years, appeal has been filed by the G.A. Department and in all cases, no notice has been issued on the question of delay in filing the appeal and the delay has been condoned without hearing the respondents. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioners in all cases have stepped to shoe of their vendors and the instrumentality of the State having accepted the order of Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement prepared the mutation ROR, accepted land receipts and accepted stamp duty on execution of the sale deeds. Then again, mutated the land in the name of purchasers and accepted rents from them. On initial stage, the provisional ROR has been prepared in the name of the vendors, who are in possession of the land. Moreover, it is seen that a field enquiry was made and was found that the petitioners in all cases were in possession of the land in question. So, in view of the fact that the State Government in G.A. Department kept silent for decades and did not challenge the order passed by the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, at present, the same cannot be re-agitated and the petitioners' right cannot be diverted over the lands in question. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to allow these three writ applications. 7. Accordingly, all the writ applications are allowed. The orders dated 03.04.2014 and 13.09.2012, as at Annexure-10 and 11, arising out of W.P. (C) No.15168/2014 passed by the Settlement Officer, Cuttack are hereby quashed. 8. The orders dated 19.07.2012 and 03.04.2014, as at Annexure-10 and 13 arising out of W.P. (C) No.15366/2014, passed by the Settlement Officer, Cuttack are quashed. 9. Similarly, the orders dated 19.07.2012 and 03.04.2014 in Annexure-9 and 12 arising out of W.P. (C) No.19677/2014, passed by the Settlement Officer, Cuttack are quashed. 10. All the writ applications are disposed of. 11. Issue urgent certified copy.