JUDGMENT Arindam Sinha, J. - Mr. Bhuyan, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client is a co-operative society wanting settlement of the plot. It stood reserved for settlement upon co-operative societies, yet the administration has taken purported steps to de-reserve and settle the land on the Panchayat, for construction of Kalyan Mandap. 2. He demonstrates from annexure-1 that the plot in question, in respect of which petitioner had applied for allotment of additional land, was reserved for Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies (PACS). His client is one such. He refers to circular dated 9th March, 2015 to submit, the reservation was for construction of godowns for storage of fertilizers and food grains. Referring to the representation dated 6th February, 2019 (annexure-5) he submits that it is for this purpose his client wants allotment of additional land by the plot in question and had applied to the Tahasildar, Tangi-Choudwar through the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, Cuttack Circle for which again reminder was sent on 6th June, 2018. He thus submits, the administration could not have de-reserved the plot, to allot same to Panchayat Raj Department, Government of Odisha for construction of Kalyan Mandap. 3. Ms. Zenish Wallace led by Mr. Lal learned advocates appear on behalf of opposite party nos. 5 and 6. Ms. Wallace submits, it was on her client's application that the procedure was undertaken, for de-reservation and settlement in respect of the plot. In event petitioner is aggrieved, appeal provision is available statutory remedy. The writ petition therefore, is not maintainable. 4. She relies on view taken by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Binod Behari Panda (dead) v. Mrugeswar Dev, Bije reported in 2013 (Supp.-II) OLR-1113, paragraph-14. She submits, the view was on reliance of a Full Bench decision of this Court in Sundarmani Bewa v. Dasarath Parida (dead) reported in 65(1988) CLT 440; that recording of title to property with one person in the Revenue Record of Rights (RoR) and possession with another in the remarks column (Column 15) does not serve intent and purpose of the Consolidation Act and, therefore, ought not to be undertaken by the Consolidation authorities under that Act. On query from Court she submits, though her client is in possession but had not challenged the reservation order and correction of the RoR. 5. Two points appear to have been contended by petitioner. On query from Court she submits, though her client is in possession but had not challenged the reservation order and correction of the RoR. 5. Two points appear to have been contended by petitioner. First is that it being a PACS is entitled to allotment of the plot as land is reserved for PACS. It requires the additional land for purpose of godown. The allotment should have been made. Second point is that when the land stands reserved for allotment to PACS, it could not be de-reserved and allotted to someone else. 6. We proceed to adjudicate on the second point. There was reservation made and remained unchallenged by opposite party nos. 5 and 6, who claim to be in possession of the land. That reservation is borne out by entry under remarks column in the RoR. It is to be acted upon, for its purpose. The administration in rejecting the application of petitioner for allotment for additional land and dereserving the plot for allotment in favour of Panchayat Raj Department, Government of Odisha, to construct Kalyan Mandap at Nakhara, is inconsistent with the purpose. 7. Binod Behari Panda (supra) is of no aid to opposite party nos. 5 and 6 because they had staring at them record of the plot in the remarks column of the RoR bearing out the reservation, which though they claim to be in possession, did not take steps to obtain remedy. 8. As aforesaid, petitioner's challenge by the second point is that the administration could not have dereserved and thereupon allotted the land contrary to purpose of the reservation. It transpires, the reservation remained unchallenged. In the circumstances, the petitioner has come up regarding exercise of power by the administration. Availability of statutory remedy if any, therefore, is not a bar to petitioner's prayer for relief. 9. Order dated 30th May, 2017 in Lease Case no.20 of 2015 and order dated 6th July, 2018 in Lease Case no.1 of 2018 are set aside and quashed. Mr. Bhuyan prays for direction upon the administration, for his client's application for additional land being allowed. We are not inclined to do so but our disinclination will not prevent petitioner from applying afresh. 10. The writ petition is disposed of.