JUDGMENT : Krushna Ram Mohapatra, J. 1. Heard Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.R. Behera, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-opposite party No. 1. 2. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 05.12.2019 (Annexure-5) passed by the Sub-Collector, Puri in Mutation Appeal No. 51 of 2019, whereby he condoned the delay of more than 12 years in filing the said appeal. 3. On the last occasion, this Court suggested learned counsel for the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy available to the petitioners under Section 32 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (for short, 'the Act') for redressal of their grievances. Mr. Patnaik, however, sought for time to address the Court on the said issue. Accordingly, the matter is listed today 4. Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on an application filed under Rule 34 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962 (for short, 'the Rules'), the case land pertaining to Khatian No. 583, Mouza-Puri Sahar, Unit-8, Baseli Sahi under Puri Tahsil (for short, 'the case land') was directed to be recorded in the name of the petitioners in Mutation Case No. 7324 of 2006 vide order dated 05.01.2008 passed by Tahasildar, Puri and accordingly, R.O.R. was corrected in their name. 4.1. Subsequently, after a lapse of more than 12 years, the opposite party No. 2 filed an appeal under Rule 42 of the Rules in Mutation Appeal No. 51 of 2019 before the Sub-Collector, Puri assailing the order passed in Mutation Case No. 7324 of 2006. Since there was a delay of more than 12 years in filing the appeal, a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed for condonation of delay along with memorandum of appeal. 5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, the impugned order has been passed, on 05.12.2019. 6. Mr. Patnaik learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the application was considered in a very mechanical manner and no reason has, been assigned for condonation of an inordinate delay of more than 12 years Since the petitioners have no other remedy available to them to challenge the said order, they have filed this writ petition. He further draws attention of this Court to Section 32 of the Act and paragraph-111 of the Mutation Manual. He further draws attention of this Court to Section 32 of the Act and paragraph-111 of the Mutation Manual. For ready reference, the same are reproduced hereunder: Section 32 of the Act; "32. The Board of Revenue may call for the revise record of any proceeding before '[any officer] from whose decision no appeal lies if such Officer appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or while acting in the exercise of his jurisdiction to have contravened some express provision of law affecting the decision on the merits where such contravention has produced a serious miscarriage of justice and the Board of Revenue, after hearing the parties if they attend shall pass' such order as it seems fit." XXX XXX XXX XXX Paragraph-111 of Mutation Manual; "111. Under Sec. 32 of the Act, the Board of Revenue have powers, with or without petition, to call for and revise any proceedings before any Officer from whose decision no appeal lies. The fact that the Board of Revenue have been vested with this power of revision of any proceedings at any time does not mean that any party to a mutation proceeding can, as a matter of course, move the Board for changing an order passed by a subordinate authority. The statutory rule does not provide for a second appeal or revision after the first appeal and in the absence of such a specific provision the general powers conferred by Sec. 32 cannot be invoked to utilise the Board of Revenue as a Court of second appeal. Powers of control and supervision by the superior authority are discretionary and the authorities exercising such powers are not ordinarily disposed to interfere except in the following classes of cases, namely: (a) where a subordinate officer has improperly refused to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him, or (b) where such officer in the exercise of the jurisdiction has failed in his duty or has contravened some express provision of law affecting the decision on the merits, and where such contravention has produced a serious miscarriage of justice, or (c) generally where it is necessary for the purpose of preventing gross abuse or gross injustice." 6.1. He has also relied upon Paragraphs-9 and 10 of the decision of this Court in the case of Manorama Mohanty v. State of Orissa and others, reported in 2010 (II) OLR 773 , which are reproduced hereunder: "9. With regard to the question as to whether sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act can be applied to a Mutation Appeal, it appears that in sections 34 and 35 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958, it is provided as follows:- "34. Limitation of applications - Subject to the provisions of the next following section, every appeal presented and application made after the period of limitation specified therefore shall be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence". "35. Application of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908-Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act 9 of 1908, except Sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 19 and 20 shall apply to all appeals and applications mentioned in Section 34." It is, therefore, clear that sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act have application to a Mutation Appeal. The grounds stated in the condonation application by the Collector in the Mutation Appeal were that the delay has occurred due to wrong filing of the case before the Board of Revenue by way of revision and, therefore, the period of pendency of the said revision should be excluded from computing the limitation period under section 14 of the Limitation Act. Sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Limitation Act prescribes as follows: "14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction. - (1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first 3 instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. (2) & (3) xx xx xx" 10. (2) & (3) xx xx xx" 10. From the above provisions, it is clear that it is only the period for which the revision was pending before the Board of Revenue can be excluded, while computing the period of limitation for filing the appeal, if the said revision was wrongly filed within 30 days of the date of the order challenged in the said revision, as the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal is 30 days from the date of the order appealed against. But, then, the said revision having been filed about 5 years after the date of the order passed in the Mutation Case, the said period of five years prior to filing of the revision was required to be explained by the Collector in the appeal, which was not done. Even after the order was passed by the Board of Revenue giving liberty to the Collector to file the appeal, the Collector waited for two years to file such appeal. These aspects not being taken into account by the appellate authority - opp. party No. 4 and no reason having been assigned whatsoever, while holding that the delay in filing the appeal has been condoned and he having passed no specific order condoning the delay, he should have dismissed the appeal as barred by time. Even on merit, the appellate authority has mis-directed itself by committing an error of record in holding that the order passed in Mutation Appeal No. 8 of 1983 was set aside by the revisional authority." 6.2. Referring to Section 32 of the Act, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the impugned order was passed in the appeal itself, remedy under Section 32 of the Act will not be available to them, as it is a suo motu power of the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack to initiate such proceeding. He further submits that paragraph-111 of Orissa Mutation Manual makes it clear that the remedy available under Section 32 of the Act cannot be availed in a routine manner and if such a revision is entertained, it would amount to entertaining a Second appeal in the guise of revision, which is not permissible. In that view of the matter, he submits that the writ petition should be entertained on merit. 7. Mr. In that view of the matter, he submits that the writ petition should be entertained on merit. 7. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that the suo motu power under Section 32 of the Act, can be exercised on filing of an application by the person aggrieved. He further submits that since no remedy of appeal is available against the impugned, order dated 05.12.2019, in such an exigency, power under Section 32 of the Act can be exercised as the grievance of the petitioners squarely falls under the said provision. In that view of the matter, the petitioners having an alternative remedy of Revision under Section 32 of the Act before the Board of Revenue, which is more efficacious, the writ petition should not be entertained. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the provisions cited above, it is crystal clear that entertaining an application for condonation of delay, the impugned order dated 05.12.2019 has been passed in Mutation Appeal No. 51 of 2019. By virtue of the impugned order, no final adjudication of the appeal has been made. The appeal is still pending for adjudication. Thus, exercising power in a revision under Section 32 of the Act, 1958 will not amount to entertaining a second appeal, as submitted by Mr. Patnaik. 9. Further, the power conferred under Section 32 of the Act does not limit the jurisdiction of the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack in any manner to initiate a revision by himself only. Paragraph-111 of the Mutation Manual makes it abundantly clear that the power under Section 32 of the Act can be exercised 'with or without an application'. True it is that the provisions contained in Mutation Manual cannot over ride provisions of the Act or Rules. It is a compilation of detaile'd instructions to implement the provisions contained in the Act and Rules. It is more in the nature of administrative instructions for smooth and effective implementation of the provisions of the Act and Rules. Filing of an application before the Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack to invoke power under Section 32 of the Act, 1958 is only an information of the illegalities or irregularities committed by the authorities subordinate to Member, Board of Revenue in a proceeding under the Act. Filing of an application before the Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack to invoke power under Section 32 of the Act, 1958 is only an information of the illegalities or irregularities committed by the authorities subordinate to Member, Board of Revenue in a proceeding under the Act. The Member, Board of Revenue can take cognizance of the same in order to exercise power under Section 32 of the Act. Thus, Section 32 of the Act does not in any way denude the Member, Board of Revenue of his power to accept an application with a prayer to initiate a proceeding under Section 32 of the Act. 10. The above view is impliedly approved in the case of Narayan Behera-v-Member Board of Revenue, Cuttack and three others, reported in 2008 (II) OLR 377 . Moreover, the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners makes it clear that the Appellate Authority has the power under Sections 34 and 35 of the Act to entertain an application under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 11. When the remedy under Section 32 of the Act is available to the petitioners and Member, Board of Revenue is competent to take cognizance and adjudicate upon the legality and propriety of the impugned order, i.e., order dated 05.12.2019, this Court should not exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more particularly, when the power conferred on the Member, Board of Revenue under Section 32 of the Act is more efficacious. 12. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is disposed of with an observation that the petitioners, if so advised, may move the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack to initiate a proceeding under Section 32 of the Act and adjudicate the same.