JUDGMENT

M.M. DAS, J. — The petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (Central Division), Cuttack in R.C. No.29 of 2006, which was a revision petition under Section 37 (1) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (for short, ‘the Act’) has preferred this writ petition.

2. The sole point raised by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the order passed under Section 37 (1) of the Act, the Revenue Divisional Commissioner without discussing the merits of the case and contentions raised by the respective parties, recording that the hal consolidation opera¬tion is over and the petitioner could not be able to file objec¬tion before the concerned consolidation authority due to her prolonged illness, remanded the matter to the Tahasildar, Udala with a direction to dispose of the case within a period of three months after verifying all the relevant documents, examining the possession of the petitioner over the case land and by giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties as per law.

3. According to Mr. Mishra, even if notification under Section 41(1) of the Act has been made, but since the revision petition was pending before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, the Tahasildar cannot be directed to decide and dispose of the case pursuant to the remand order passed by the said R.D.C.. Mr. Mishra also submitted that Section 37 is the power vested with the Commissioner, Consolidation to call for the record from any subordinate authority and examine the same with regard to the regularity of the proceeding or its correctness, legality or propriety and to pass such orders as he thinks fit. Mr. Mishra further drew the attention of the Court to Section 41 (2) of the Act, which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), consolidation operation shall not be deemed to have been closed in respect of case or proceeding pending under the provisions of the Act on the date of issue of notification under Sub-section (1) thereof. In Sub-section (3) thereof, it has been provided that the orders passed by the competent authorities in matters referred to in Sub-section (2) shall be given effect to by such authorities as may be prescribed. According to Mr. Mi¬shra, the Tahasildar has no jurisdiction under the Act to adjudi¬cate a dispute even after closure of the consolidation by issu¬ance of notification under Section 41 of the Act. Referring to Rule 36 of the Rules framed under the Act, he contended that though the said Rule provides that the orders passed by the competent authorities shall be given effect to under Sub-section (3) of Section 41 of the Act by the local Tahasildar, but reading of Section 41 (3) of the act and Rule 36 of the Rules together would go to show that the consolidation operation shall be deemed to be continuing in respect of pending cases and the Tahasildar under Rule 36 has been vested with the power, only to give effect to an order passed by the competent authority. Hence, the Taha¬sildar does not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute. Mr. Mishra, therefore, contended that the R.D.C. has committed an error in remitting the case to the concerned Tahasildar instead of remitting the matter to the Consolidation Officer.

4. Mr. B. Dash, learned Addl. Government Advocate and Mr. N. Lenka, learned counsel appearing for opp.parties 4 to 7 draw¬ing the attention of the Court to Section 25 (4) of the Act, submitted that the said provision clearly stipulates that the powers conferred on the Assistant Consolidation Officer under Sub-section (3) of the said Section shall in the like manner and like circumstances be exercisable by the Tahasildar having juris¬diction after the issuance of notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 41 of the Act. They further submitted that under Section 44 (1) of the Act, it has been clearly stipulated that the authorities under the Act as well as the Tahasild