JUDGMENT

A. K. PATNAIK, J. — The case of the petitioner is that he is a landless person and he applied to the Tahasildar, Boudh for grant of lease of land for homestead purpose in Boudh town. The said application was registered as U.L.S. Case No. 3/69 and by order dated 24.12.1974 lease of the land measuring Ac. 0.06 decimals in Plot No. 55, Sabik Hal Khata No. 1229 corresponding to Hal Plot No. 1495 and Hal Khata No. 1041 in Mouza Boudh town (Machhakhanda) District-Phulbani was granted in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner paid rent for the land and patta was issued in his favour. Settlement operation in the area was start¬ed in the year 1996 and Record of rights were published on 13.9.1996 and in the said record of rights, the aforesaid land was shown as Government land (Anabadi). In March 2002, the peti¬tioner came to know about the fact that in the record of rights published under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958, the aforesaid land has been shown as Government land (Anabadi). He filed a Revision Petition No. 98/2001 on 25.5.2001 before the Commissioner, Land Reforms and Land Records, Orissa, Cuttack under Section 15 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act praying for recording the aforesaid land in his favour with the Kissam as ‘Gharabari’. Along with the said application he filed an applica¬tion for condoning the delay of four years, eight months and twelve days in filing the revision petition. By order dated 21.3.2002, the Commissioner, Land Reforms and Land Records held that the reason for delay as mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner was not at all convincing and the petition was barred by limitation and thereby did not admit the Revision petition. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer to quash the said order dated 21.3.2002 of the Commissioner, Land Reforms and land records and for a direction to the said Commissioner to record the land in his favour.

2. All that has been stated in the impugned order dated 21.3.2002 of the Commissioner, Land Reforms and Land Records is that the reason for delay, as mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not at all convincing. By order dated 15.7.2003 we called upon the petitioners to file a copy of the application for condoning the delay which was filed before the Commissioner, Land Reforms and Land Records and the petitioner has produced a copy of the said application dated 10.1.2002. Paragraph-5 of the said application states that the petitioner was a Government servant and most of the time he was remaining outside his village due to his official work and he has no knowl¬edge regarding the settlement operation. Paragraph-6 of the said application states that the delay to file the revision applica¬tion is not intentional, deliberate or wilful and, therefore, delay of four years, eight months and twelve days to file the revision may be condoned and the case may be heard on merit.

3. Mr. S.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 15 (b) of the Orissa Survey and Set¬tlement Act, 1958 the Board of Revenue has the power to revise the record of rights or any portion thereof not only within the period of one year from the date of final publication of the record of rights under Section 12-B but even thereafter and the only limitation provided in the said Section 15 is that the Commissioner cannot revise the record of rights or any portion thereof so as to affect any order passed by the Civil Court under Section 42 of the said Act. Hence, the Commissioner should have entertained the Revision petition even after the period of one year from the date of publication of the record of rights, par¬ticularly when valuable right of the petitioner which had accrued to him was affected on account of non-recording of his right in the record of rights published under the Act.

4. Mr. G.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, supp