JUDGMENT

PRADIP MOHANTY, J. — All these applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India were heard together as they arise out of the common orders passed by the Consolidation au¬thorities under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Preven¬tion of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in respect of all the lands which the petitioners claim to have purchased the same by registered sale-deeds. They are accordingly disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are follows :

The disputed property stood recorded in the name of Deity Shri Shri Biswanath Mohadev, Bije Samangola in the district of Jagatsinghpur, which according to the petitioners is a private deity. The Marfatdars, thereafter, transferred them for consid¬eration under some registered sale-deeds of the year 1965. During the last settlement operation, the Settlement Authorities record¬ed the property in favour of the ‘Deity Marfat Dhadi Parida’ (petitioner No. 1). Before the settlement operation was fina¬lised, the consolidation operation came into force in the locali¬ty by virtue of Notification dated 15.7.1978 which was published under Section 3(1) of the Act.

3. On the commencement of the consolidation proceeding/operation, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 filed their objec¬tions separately before the Assistant Consolidation Officer as provided under Section 9(3) of the Act. The said objection cases were registered as Objection Case Nos. 1777/625 and 241/788 respectively. In both the objection cases, prayer was made for deleting the name of the Deity and recording the lands in favour of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and also for correction of the area in favour of petitioner No.1.

The Assistant Consolidation Officer passed orders on 7.7.1981 and 13.8.1981 rejecting both the objection cases (vide Annexures - 1/1 and 1/2 in OJC 3385 of 1992). The petitioners did not prefer to challenge the orders.

While this was the position, the provisional consolidation scheme was prepared and published under Sections 17 and 18 of the Act and notices were issued under Section 18 to the two petition¬ers-Marfat the Deity. Instead of filing any objecting pursuant to the notices issued under Section 18 of the Act, the petitioners filed two revision cases before the Director of Consolidation under Section 37 (2) of the Act which are registered as Revision Case Nos. 394 of 1985 and 395 of 1985. In these two revision cases, the petitioner challenged the orders under Annexures - 2/2 and 2/3 (In OJC 3385 of 1992). The Director disposed of the revision cases by order dated 13.9.1985 under Annexures-5 and 6 by remitting back the objection cases to the Consolidation Officer for disposal according to law. This was so done because it was brought to the notice of the Director that the Consolidation Officer was hearing Objection Case No. 943/243 of 1984 and Objec¬tion Case No. 941/241 of 1984 filed by the opposite parties.

4. On 7.1.1986 the Consolidation Officer, after hearing the objection from the parties including opposite parties 5 to 8, disposed of the objection cases of both the parties under Annex¬ure-7 with a direction to record the land in the name of opposite parties 5 to 8 as Trustees of the Deity. Thereafter, the peti¬tioners preferred four consolidation appeals to the Deputy Direc¬tor of Consolidation which were registered as Appeal Case Nos. 23 to 26 of 1986. The Deputy Director, opposite party No. 3, after hearing the parties dismissed all the appeals on 29.3.1986 vide Annexure-8. Thereafter the petitioners preferred consolidation revisions to the Commissioner of Consolidation, opposite party No. 1 which were registered as consolidation Revision Nos. 880 to 883 of 1986. After giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, on 13.3.1992 the Consolidation Commissioner passed an order dismissing all the revisions by a common order under Annexure-9. Against that order the petitioners have preferred thes