JUDGMENT

A.S. NAIDU, J. — All these Writ applications have been filed challenging a common order dated 26th December, 1995 (Annexure-3 in each case) passed by the Joint Commissioner, Con¬solidation, Orissa, Cuttack in Consolidation Revision No.877 of 1992/630 of 1994 filed under Section 36(1) of the Orissa Consoli¬dation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Consolidation Act’) revers¬ing the orders passed by the appellate authority.

2. The dispute in the present case is confined to Ac.0.20 decimals of land appertaining to L.R. Plot No.99 and L.R. Khata No.230 of Mouza Merdha under Jajpur Tahsil in the district of Jajpur. The said land along with other lands were admittedly species of a joint family property and was a part and parcel of an intermediary estate. In a partition suit, i.e. T.S. No.32 of 1999, the said joint family property was partitioned among the co-sharer intermediaries and Ac.1.02 dec. of land was allotted in favour of Achyutananda Kabi who was one of the intermediaries. The present opposite parties 1 and 2 happen to be the son and widow respectively of said Achyutananda Kabi. According to the petitioners, Achyutananda during his lifetime had executed a permanent Lease Deed on 24.6.1949 in favour of Sk. Gokha, the predecessor in interest of the present petitioners. In consonance with the said Lease Deed, Sk. Gokha, it was alleged, was possess¬ing the land on the date of vesting thereof in the State. It was asserted that on 11.7.1960 Achyutananda had filed a Misc. Case under Sections 6 and 7 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act for settlement of the disputed land in his favour which was regis¬tered as OEA Case No.3390 of 1964-65. Thereafter on 4.4.1967 by two registered sale deeds Achyutananda had transferred Ac.0.74 dec. of land in favour of Sk.Gokha and Sk. Samiruddin. While matter stood thus on 28th April, 1968 Achyutananda died. After his death on 11.7.1968 the lands were settled in favour of Achyu¬tananda in consonance with order passed in the OEA Case. When the Mouza in which the lands situated was brought under Consolidation operation, four Objection Cases were filed by Sk. Gokha before the concerned Consolidation Officer which were registered as Case Nos.879 to 882 of 1989 with a prayer to record the lands in his favour. The Consolidation Officer dismissed all the Objection Cases holding that the lands belonged to an intermediary estate. The estate having vested by the date of alienation made by, Achyutananda, the ex intermediary, who had no interest after vesting, the objectors did not acquire any title to the land.

3. Being aggrieved, the present petitioners preferred four Appeal Cases before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Before the said appellate authority, the petitioners contended that as the lands had been subsequently settled in favour of Achyutananda in consonance with the provisions of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, the alienation made by Achyutananda in favour of Sk.Gokha would confer valid title on Sk.Gokha. The appellate authority having accepted the said contention allowed the Appeal Cases.

4. Being aggrieved by the said appellate order, present opposite parties 1 and 2, the L.Rs. and successors of Achyutanan¬da Kabi preferred four Revision Cases before the Commissioner of Consolidation which were ultimately heard and disposed of by the Joint Commissioner. The said revisional authority however did not accept the reasonings given by the appellate authority. According to the revisional authority Section 43 of the Transfer of Proper¬ty Act had absolutely no application to the cases and by virtue of the said Section no title had been acquired by Achyutananda, more so the order of settlement in consonance with the OEA Act was passed after the death of Achyutananda. Thus the same was a nullity, having passed in favour of a dead person, and allowed all the Revision Cases. The said order of the revisional authori¬ty is cha