JUDGMENT

A.S. NAIDU, J. : The petitioners, who claim to be the inhabitants of village Balabudhi in the district of Balasore, have filed this writ petition challenging, inter alia, the order dated December 29, 2005 passed by the Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Bhubaneswar in Consolidation Revision No.498 of 2003 dismissing the said revision and thereby confirming the order dated September 23, 2002 passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, opposite party No.3 in Remand Appeal No.5 of 2001. By the said orders, the Consolidation authorities had directed to record the suit land in favour of opposite party No.4.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the short facts which may be necessary for effectual appreciation of the inter se disputes are as follows :

The disputed land, as it appears from the pleadings was an Anabadi land of ex-intermediary Sri Manmatha Nath Dev and Mano¬ranjan Dev. Bhagaban Behera, the predecessor in interest of opposite party No.4, it appears was inducted as a tenant in respect of an area of Ac.0.063 dec. appertaining to C.S. Plot No.302 and an “Amalanama Patta” was executed by the ex-intermediary in his favour on March 3, 1944 in token of such inductment. It is claimed that possession of the land was deliv¬ered to said Bhagaban Behera, and he remained in cultivating possession thereof, paid rent and obtained rent receipts from the intermediary year after year.

3. After promulgation of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951, the intermediary right vested with the State Government. In consonance with the provisions of the said Act, it appears, the ex-intermediary submitted ‘Rafa’ to the Government and on the basis of the same, “tenancy ledger” was opened in favour of Bhagaban Behera and he was deemed to be a tenant under the State in consonance with Section 8(1) of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act and rent was received from him by the Tahasildar regularly from the date of vesting.

4. In consonance with the notification issued under the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act, 1972 the mouza in which the disputed lands are situated came within the purview of the consolidation opera¬tion. Thereafter land register was prepared in the name of Bhagaban Behera in respect of the disputed lands. Disputing the recording, an objection was filed by some of the villagers, which was registered as Objection Case No.3982 of 1996. Relying upon order passed in O.E.A. Case No. 48/55-56 of Board of Revenue, the objection case was allowed. Being aggrieved by the said order, Bhagaban Behera approached the revisional authority. On being satisfied that the order was passed by the Consolidation Officer, without affording any opportunity to the petitioner, the same was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Deputy Direc¬tor, Consolidation for de novo hearing. The Deputy Director after vivid discussion of the evidence, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that O.E.A. Case No.48/55-56 was initiated by one Guhina Behera with a prayer to record the disputed land in his favour. After field enquiry and on being satisfied that the aforesaid person was not in possession as a tenant in respect of the disputed lands, the O.E.A. Collector had dismissed the case. It is observed that Bhagaban was neither a party in the said case nor he was aware with regard to filing of the said case. Conse¬quently, it was held that the order passed in the O.E.A. case was not binding on the petitioners and the order passed in the objec¬tion case basing upon such order was illegal. The Deputy Director relying upon Section 8(1) of the O.E.A. Act held that enough evidence both oral and documentary was available on record to reveal that Bhagaban Behera was in fact inducted as a tenant by the intermediary and he was in cultivating possession of the lands on the date of vesting and was paying rent to the interme¬diary and thereafter in consonance with the tenancy ledger, he was deemed to be a tenant of the State as per Section 8(1) of the O.E.A. Act. Rent w