ORDER K.R. Mohapatra, J. - Heard Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Neelakantha Panda, learned counsel for the opposite party No.4 and Mr. Dillip Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite party Nos.1 to 3. 2. The petitioners in this writ petition seek to assail the order dated 06.11.2007 (Annexure-1) passed by the Joint Commissioner, Settlement & Consolidation, Berhampur in S.R.P. No. 802 of 2006 filed by the opposite party No.4. 3. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the opposite party No.4 filed the aforesaid revision to correct the final R.O.R. and the map in respect of Hal Plot No. 204, Holding No.198 to an extent of Ac.0.08 decimals situated in village Kurlughati under Nabarangpur Tahasil in the district of Nabarangpur (for short, 'the case land'), on the basis of his possession and succession. The revisional authority without condoning the delay proceeded with the matter. At the stage of final hearing, the Joint Commissioner without assigning any good reason condoned the delay in filing the revision petition holding that the land is recorded in the status of 'Gramakantha' and remitted the matter back to the Tahasildar, Nabarangpur-opposite party No.3 to cause a field inspection and effect correction of the map and record the case land in favour of the Opp. Party No.4 (petitioner therein) on the basis of the possession and entitlement. It is his submission that Section 15 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (for short, 'the Act') confers a power on the Board of Revenue/Commissioner to correct the R.O.R. He has no jurisdiction to delegate such power to the Tahasildar, Nabarangpur-Opposite Party No.3 to effect correction in the ROR or map without any specific direction thereto. The Tahasildar, Nabarangpur-opposite party No.3 while acting upon the direction of the Joint Commissioner under Section 15 of the Act, exercises power under Rule 34 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962 (for short, 'the Rules') and cannot take a final decision with regard to entitlement of the party. He can only give effect to the correction, if any, in the R.O.R. pursuant to the direction of the Joint Commissioner under Section 15 of the Act. He can only give effect to the correction, if any, in the R.O.R. pursuant to the direction of the Joint Commissioner under Section 15 of the Act. In support of his case, he relied upon the decision in the case of Sarat Chandra Sahu -v- Commissioner of Land Records & Settlement, Orissa, Cuttack, reported in 82 (1996) CLT-321, wherein it has been held at paragraph-10 as follows: '10. While quashing the order passed by the Commissioner we also notice what the Commissioner has really not adjudicated the revision except giving a direction to the Tahasildar to cause an inquiry in respect of the genealogy. The revision was preferred as admitted, under Section 15 of the Act. Under Section 15(b) the Commissioner has been given the authority to decide the grievance of the parties in relation to final publication of record of rights. A statutory power by a statutory authority has to be exercised in a proper manner so that the litigants have a sense of satisfaction that their grievance, have been appropriately dealt with. The Commissioner should have done well to address himself on the merits of the case. But instead of doing so he passed the orders of remand. While we are of the view that the operative portion of the impugned order relating to remand is absolutely unsustainable, yet we feel in the interest of justice the claim of the revisionist should be considered by the revisional authority within the parameter of revisonal jurisdiction. As there has been no adjudication on that score we feel it is appropriate that the Commissioner should re-hear the matter and decide it afresh. To avoid delay, we direct the parties to appear before the revisional authority on 28.06.1996 on which date the Commissioner shall fix a date of hearing and dispose of the revision by the end of October, 1996. ' 3.1 He further submits that relying upon the decision in the case of Smt. Bijaya Chatterjee -v- Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, Orissa and others, reported in 2000 Vol-II OLR 349, wherein this Court relying upon the ratio in Sarat Chandra Sahu (supra) and Harihar Mohapatra and others -v- Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Orissa, Cuttack, reported in 1998 (II) OLR 495 , held as follows: ' 3 The revision was remanded to the Tahasildar forfinal decision. It has been held in the decisions reported in 82 (1996) CLT 321 (Sarart Chandra Sahu v. Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Orissa, Cuttack and others.) and 1998 (II) OLR 495 (Harihar Mohapatra and Ors. v. Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Orissa and others) that the Commissioner while deciding a revision under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act cannot remand the matter to the Tahasildar for final decision. However, in the subsequent decision it has been clarified that though such remand is not contemplated, the Commissioner can call for a report from the Tahasildar. It appears that in the present case, the Commissioner has remanded the matter to the Tahasildar for fresh disposal and the Tahasildar without making any further inquiry has recorded the land in the names of present contesting opposite parties, merely on the basis of the observations made by the Commissioner. Since the procedure adopted by the Commissioner is contrary to the ratio of the two Division Bench decisions of this Court referred to above, which are otherwise binding on me and since the matter was disposed of ex parte by the Commissioner, I deem it just and proper in the interest of justice to quash the order passed by the Commissioner and the consequential order passed by the Tahasildar, and remand the matter to the Commissioner for fresh disposal. Both parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner on 21st August, 2000, who shall thereafter dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. It is made clear that no opinion has been expressed regarding the rival contentions made by the parties. This order shall be communicated to the Commissioner.' 4. In view of such submission, he prays for setting aside the impugned order and to remit the matter back to the Joint Commissioner for fresh adjudication on the issue of limitation as well as on merit, giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 5. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the opposite party No.4, vehemently objected to the same and submits that in fact, the petitioners are not in possession over the case land as would be clear from the finding in C.S. No.25 of 2010, which was dismissed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Nabarangpur on 06.03.2012 (Annexure-2). 5. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the opposite party No.4, vehemently objected to the same and submits that in fact, the petitioners are not in possession over the case land as would be clear from the finding in C.S. No.25 of 2010, which was dismissed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Nabarangpur on 06.03.2012 (Annexure-2). In the said suit, it was categorically held that Ananda Suna was not in possession over the case land. He further submits that while considering the issue of limitation in filing the revision under Section 15(b) of the Act, the Court should have taken a liberal view as has been held in the case of (Smt.) Sailabala @ Krushnapriya Parida -v- State of Orissa and others, reported in 2014 (Supp.II) OLR 401. The land being a 'Gramkantha' land, delay should not stand on the way in deciding the correctness of entries in the R.O.R. as well as map. He further submits that sabik R.O.R. was prepared in the name of common ancestor, namely, Jacob Suna, who divided the properties amongst his seven sons and the opposite party No.4 is one of his sons. Thus, he is entitled to a share in the properties as per his possession. As he was staying outside, he could not take steps in the settlement operation, taking advantage of which the petitioners and their predecessors managed to record the case land in their favour. Relying upon a decision in the case of Brundaban Patnaik -v- Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement and others, reported in 2001 (I) OLR-53, Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the opposite party No.4 submits that the Tahasildar has ample power under paragraph-17(I) of the Mutation Manual to conduct a field inquiry and correct the map. Paragraphs-3 and 4 of Brundaban Patnaik (supra) read as follows: '3. According to the petitioner, he has been in possession of land measuring Ac.0.050 decimals uninterruptedly without any hindrance from any quarter although in the registered sale deed No.8486 dated 6.10.1970, the extent of the land was noted as Ac.0.041 decimals. In support of the petitioner's stand that he has been in possession of land in excess of the land mentioned in the sale deed, the learned counsel for the petitioner brings to our notice the order of the Asst. Settlement Officer dated 2.09.1983 passed in objection Case No.187/330 which was filed at the instance of one Bijoy Kumar Pattnaik. In support of the petitioner's stand that he has been in possession of land in excess of the land mentioned in the sale deed, the learned counsel for the petitioner brings to our notice the order of the Asst. Settlement Officer dated 2.09.1983 passed in objection Case No.187/330 which was filed at the instance of one Bijoy Kumar Pattnaik. In the said order, the Asst. Settlement Office has directed to record Ac.0.047 decimals in place of Ac.0.050 decimals. The Commissioners, as submitted by Shri Behuria, without taking into account the aforesaid order has illegally directed the Tahasildar to ignore petitioner's possession of excess area. Shri Panda appearing for Municipal Corporation submits that there are documents which would show the petitioner is in possession of land less than Ac.0.041 decimals. 4. Considering the submission of the counsel for parties, we dispose of this writ application with an observation that the Tahasildar while taking up of the case under para 17(I) of the Mutation Manual, as indicated by the Commissioner, will consider the aforesaid order of the Assistant Settlement Officer and pass order according to law after hearing the parties concerned. It may be stated that we are not expressing any opinion on the merit of the claim of the petitioner. Urgent certified copy of the order, if applied for, may be granted by tomorrow.' 5.1 Thus, the Joint Commissioner has committed no error in issuing the impugned direction. 5.2 He further relied upon the case of Santosh Kumar Mohanty & others -v- Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Cuttack & others, reported in 2007 (I) OLR- 595 and submitted that when the Joint Commissioner after verifying the record condoned the delay and directed to conduct a field inquiry, this Court in exercise of power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India should not interfere with the same. Paragraphs-5 and 6 of the judgment in the case of Santosh Kumar Mohanty (supra) read as follows: '5. After verifying all the records, the Commissioner has directed the Tahasildar for a field enquiry and called for a status report on 8.8.2006. Considering all the above materials and after hearing the parties he has condoned the delay and allowed the revision and directed for correction of the Hal settlement R.O.R. and map in respect of the disputed land in the name of the present opp. party No. 4 along with his co-sharers. 6. Considering all the above materials and after hearing the parties he has condoned the delay and allowed the revision and directed for correction of the Hal settlement R.O.R. and map in respect of the disputed land in the name of the present opp. party No. 4 along with his co-sharers. 6. The Commissioner has considered all the materials on record and passed the order in accordance with law. This Court by exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 does not exercise the powers of an appellate jurisdiction. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior Court purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own view. For the reason aforesaid as there is no illegality or infirmity in the said order to be interfered with by this Court. The R.O.R. neither create title nor extinguish title and as such this dismissal will not preclude the petitioner from availing any other remedy which they may have entitled. The writ application is accordingly dismissed.' 5. 3 He, therefore, submits that the writ petition does not merit consideration and prays for dismissal of the same. 6. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State referring to the judgment passed in Civil Suit No.25 of 2010 (Annexure-2) submitted that the predecessor of the petitioners was not in possession over the case land. Thus, no fruitful purpose will be served by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the Joint Commissioner for fresh adjudication, as prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioners. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 8. Taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties, it is apparent that the properties were recorded in the name of common ancestor, Jacob Suna, who effected partition amongst his sons and allotted shares to each of them. The issue in the revision was with regard to possession and succession of the petitioners' vis-a-vis the opposite party No.1 in the said revision over the case land. The Joint Commissioner taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties remitted the matter back to the Tahasildar, Nabarangpur-opposite party No.3 for a field enquiry and effect correction in the R.O.R. and map accordingly. The Joint Commissioner taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties remitted the matter back to the Tahasildar, Nabarangpur-opposite party No.3 for a field enquiry and effect correction in the R.O.R. and map accordingly. In view of the ratio decided in Sarat Chandra Sahu and Smt. Bijaya Chatterjee (supra), the direction of the Joint Commissioner remitting the matter back to the Tahasildar, Nabarangpur-opposite party No.3 to take a final decision in the matter with regard to correctness of the R.O.R. and map cannot be sustained. 9. As held in Smt. Bijaya Chaterjee (supra), the Joint Commissioner could have called for a report from the Tahasildar, Nabarangpur-opposite party No.3 and considering the report with regard to possession of the parties together with rival contentions of the parties should have given a finality to the case and thereafter directed the Tahasildar, Nabarangpur-opposite party No.3 to give effect to the same, if necessary. 10. After publication of the R.O.R. under Section 12-B of the Act, the Tahasildar cannot sit over the correctness of recording of the R.O.R. and map. He can only act within the parameters and the contingencies mentioned in Rule 34 of the Rules. The Tahasildar can also make correction of clerical or arithmetical error and omission in the finally published ROR and map as provided under Section 41 of the Act, but, not beyond that. He cannot take a final decision in respect of correctness of the entries in the R.O.R and the map. At the same time, the Commissioner while exercising power under Section 15 of the Act is under legal obligation to take a final decision in the revision and if necessary may issue direction to the concerned Tahasildar to give effect to the said order only. He has no jurisdiction to remit the matter back to the Tahasildar to take a final decision in the matter. Neither the Commissioner has the power to delegate his jurisdiction under Section 15 of the Act, nor does the Tahasildar have competence to exercise such power under the Act and Rules. Brundaban Patnaik (supra) has been decided on facts of the said case and does not lay down any principle of law. As such, the same has no application to this case. 10. Brundaban Patnaik (supra) has been decided on facts of the said case and does not lay down any principle of law. As such, the same has no application to this case. 10. In the instant case, therefore, the direction to the Tahasildar, Nabarangpur-opposite party No.3 to take a final decision with regard to possession and correction of map, is not sustainable and is, accordingly, set aside. 11. So far as the issue of condonation of delay is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that in view of the settled position of law in (Smt.) Sailabala @ Krushnapriya Parida (supra), the Revisional Court while exercising power under Section 15(b) of the Act, the Joint Commissioner should take a liberal view, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant case, the case land is a 'paramboka' land. Further, it is the case of the opposite party No.4 that he was not in village during settlement operation. Thus, he could not participate in the settlement operation to assert his right and record the case land in his name. When the parties have contested the revision on merit and the Joint Commissioner on consideration of facts and circumstances of the case has condoned the delay, I am not inclined to interfere with the said finding at such a belated stage. 12. Thus, without interfering with the finding of the Joint Commissioner with regard to condonation of delay, this Court sets aside the impugned finding under Annexure-1 in remitting the matter to Tahasildar, Nabarangpur. Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Berhampur-opposite party No.1 to take a decision in the matter on merit, keeping in mind the discussions made above, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. If necessary, the Joint Commissioner may call for a report from the Tahasildar, Nabarangpur-opposite party No.3 with regard to field position and possession of the parties and upon receipt of the said report, he is free to consider the rival contentions of the parties along with the said report and take a final decision in the matter. 13. With the said observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.