JUDGMENT

M. M. DAS, J. — As both the writ petitions arise out of the same facts, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. In both the writ petitions, the order dated 20.9.2000 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar in O.E.A. Appeal Case No.3 of 2000 and subsequent consequential orders have been challenged and in O.J.C. No.3690 of 2002 in addition to the above relief, the petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 31.5.1993 passed in Suo Motu Bebandobas¬ta Case No.47 of 1991 by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, out of which the aforesaid O.E.A. Appeal Case No.3 of 2000 arose. The fact of the case reveals that there is long drawn litigations between the petitioner Smt. Basanta Kumari Dei and the opp.par¬ties 1 and 2, namely, Smt. Krushna Priya Devi and Sri Jayananda Tripathy (in O.J.C. No.3690 of 2002), which commenced from the year 1984. The case involves various disputed question of facts which is not required to be gone into in the present writ peti¬tions. However, for convenience as some facts are necessary to be referred to, they are stated hereunder.

3. The disputed property originally belonged to one Soma¬nath Badu whose name was recorded in the Record of Rights pub¬lished in the year 1962. In the year 1965, the said Somanath Badu sold Ac.0.100 decimals of land each to one Gopinath Dash and one Gurubari Dibya by two registered sale deeds. The petitioner, Smt. Basanta Kumari Dei purchased the said Ac.0.200 decimals of land from the above two persons by two registered sale deeds in the year 1978. She claims to have got the property mutated and demar¬cated in Mutation Case No.231 of 1981 and Demarcation Case No.258 of 1981. She also claims to have obtained permission from the Municipal authorities for construction of temporary shed and residential building over her purchased land. The land originally was the property of Lord Lingaraj Mohaprabhu of Bhubaneswar who was the landlord. The intermediary interest of Lord Lingaraj Mohaprabhu vested in the State with effect from 18.3.1974 under the provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.E.A. Act’). During the settlement opera¬tion, though the petitioner in O.J.C. No.3690 of 2002 claims to have filed an objection, the Assistant Settlement Officer ob¬serving that the land has been recorded in Bebandobasta status and the sale-deeds were executed after the property vested in the State, the land cannot be recorded in the name of the said peti¬tioner, prepared the record in the name of the legal heirs of the previous tenant, that is, late Somanath Badu, mentioning the name of the petitioner in the remarks column as “possession by way of illegal purchase”. Again on 14.9.1988, by a Suo Motu Settlement Case, the Assistant Settlement Officer deleted the name of the said petitioner from the remark column and recorded he name of the opp.party No.2 in the said column as “possession by way of illegal plain paper agreement for sale”. The petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner of Settlement and Land Records (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commissioner’) which was ul¬timately allowed in favour of the petitioner and the matter was remitted to the Assistant-Settlement Officer. Against the afore¬said order of remand, the opp.party No.1 filed O.J.C. No.2338 of 1989 before this Court, which was dismissed for non-prosecution. However, the matter could not be proceeded after remained, as in the meantime, the final record of right was published. Hence, the petitioner filed a fresh revision before the Commissioner under Section 15 (a) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1962. In the writ petition filed by the opp.party No.1 which was O.J.C. No.2338 of 1989 and was dismissed for non-prosecution, the petitioner was not impleaded as a party.However, in the revision before the Commissioner, the opp.parties 1 and 2 submitted that the above writ petition was pending before this Court th