JUDGMENT

S. PANDA, J. - The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 10.7.2000 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate, Bolangir in O.L.R. Revision No. 14 of 1933 confirming the orders dated 12.5.1993 and 18.2.1992 passed by the Officer on Special Duty (L.R.), Bolangir and Tahasildar & Revenue Officer, Tusra in OLR Appeal Nos. 4 and 5 of 1992 and OLR Case No.5 of 1986 respectively.

2. To appreciate the dispute between the parties, it is necessary to narrate the facts of the case which are as follows:

Originally the disputed land was recorded in the name of Khageswar Sahu, the matrimonial grand-father of the present petitioner. Opposite party No.2 is the son of said Khageswar Sahu. There was a partition between Khageswar and his son in the year 1956. The Revenue Officer after due inquiry in a proceeding recorded the land separately in the name of the father and the son in the year 1974. Thereafter, Khageswar and his son possessed the property as per their respective shares and the ceiling proceeding was dropped, as there was no ceiling surplus land. While Khageswar was in possession of land, having full right, title and interest over his share, he executed a Willnama in favour of the petitioner in a sound health and mind. Khageswar died in the year 1976. After his death, petitioner succeeded to the said land as per the terms of the Willnama and remained in physical possession of the land since then. Opposite party No.2 had never claimed that property after the death of Khageswar.

3. While the matter stood thus, a ceiling proceeding was initiated by opposite party No.4 in OLR Case No.5 of 1986 against opposite party No. 2. In the said case, both the opposite party No.2 and the petitioner filed their objections. The petitioner reiterated the facts regarding the Willnama executed by Khageswar and after his death, the petitioner is in possession of the land and at no point of time, opposite party No.2 claimed the said land as his own land. Since the land possessed by the petitioner was under the ceiling unit and there was no ceiling surplus land in Bolangir district, it is not necessary to be probated. Opposite party No.2 supported the plea of the petitioner also. The Revenue Officer on 25.10.1988 without considering the plea of the petitioner found that there is ceiling surplus land and opposite party No.2 succeeded to the property after death of Khageswar and he possessed the land measuring an area of Ac. 17.54 decimals. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, both the opposite party No.2 and the petitioner have preferred appeals before the Sub-Collector, Bolangir. In the said appeals, opposite party No.3 was impleaded himself as a party and he is the adopted son of Bishnupriya Sahu, one of the daughters of Khageswar. The appellate Court remanded the matter. On remand, the Revenue Officer heard the matter afresh and after recording the evidence adduced by the parties, came to' the finding that the Willnama was executed in a plain paper and the partition of the appellant should be made by way of registration of instrument by decree of, a Court and by an order of a Revenue Officer on mutual agreement. The record of rights of the village was physically published during the year 1976-77. Objector Kunjabihari Sahu had not taken any step to get the case land recorded in his favour during hal settlement. The scribe of the Willnamna has not corroborated the statement of the petitioner regarding place where the Willnama was written. Hence, the Willnama is not in force and cannot be relied upon. So far as the claim of opposite party No.3 is concerned, he was adopted by one of the daughters of Khageswar and the said opposite party No.3 in support of his plea examined opposite party No.2. The said witness was also cross-examined at length. Nothing tangible has come out from his deposition. On a plain scrutiny, the signature of Khageswar appears to be the same in the Willnama and gift deed. However, as he has not taken