JUDGMENT :

Biswanath Rath, J.

This writ petition has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 4.3.2014 passed in Appeal Case No.29/2013 by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Kendrapara, and the order dated 18.12.2014 passed in Revision Case No.88/2014 by the Commissioner, Consolidation & Settlement, Cuttack, under Annexures-7 & 8 respectively.

2. Short background involved in this case is that the petitioner purchased a schedule land on 25.5.2007 from the recorded tenant after final consolidation R.O.R. belongs to one Khatrabasi Tripathy in the name of Prabhanjan Swain and Dibyendu Swain, present O.Ps. 4 & 5, who were by then minor sons of Dharanidhar Swain, O.P.6, vide registered sale deed no.1407 dated 3.3.1980. During consolidation operation, O.P.6 filed Objection Case No.103/80 under Section 9(3) of O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act with a prayer to record the schedule land in the name of O.Ps.4 & 5, which was allowed by the Consolidation Officer, vide his order dated 7.1.1981 (Annexure-2). Final consolidation R.O.R. was published on 23.4.2003 indicating the names of O.Ps.4 & 5, as land owners. It is after publication of the consolidation R.O.R. for the legal necessity, O.Ps.4 & 5 being major sold the suit land, vide R.S.D. No.1353 dated 25.5.2007 to the present petitioner and consequently, also delivered the possession, vide registered sale deed under Annexure-4. After the aforesaid purchase, the present petitioner filed Mutation Case No.1044/2007 for change in the name of the ownership involving the sale deed taken place under Annexure-4 and the Tahasildar, Kendrapara allowing the Mutation Case effected the change in the name of the ownership thereby fixing rent to be realized from the petitioner. It is alleged that O.P.6 being greedy in order harass the petitioner filed Consolidation Revision No.152/2007 five years after publication of the R.O.R. and the case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer, O.P.3 for considering the matter under Section 11 of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act. Unfortunately, in the said case the vendor was only impleaded and deliberately keeping the petitioner away from the proceeding even though the sale in favour of the present petitioner was already effected since 25.5.2007 and in spite of the order being passed in Mutation Case in favour of the petitioner.

The Remand Revision Case No.152/2007 was disposed of by order dated 16.4.2013 (Annexure-6) thereby dismissing the Remand Revision Case. O.P.6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, O.P.6 filed Consolidation Appeal Case No.29/2013 before the Deputy Director, O.P.2. The present petitioner appeared in the proceeding. It is alleged that even though the case was initially posted to 21.3.2014 for hearing, it is on the basis of an advance petition being moved by O.P.5 with intention to see the disposal of the matter in absence of the present petitioner, such application was accepted and the matter was finally disposed of on 4.3.2014 behind the back of the petitioner thereby allowing the appeal upon setting aside the order passed in the Remand Revision Case.

Being aggrieved by the order passed in the appeal, present petitioner filed Revision Case No.88/2014 and the Commissioner illegally dismissed the Revision, vide Annexure-8.

3. Assailing the impugned orders under Anexures-7 & 8, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised two grounds, such as:-

Firstly, since the appeal was posted to 21.3.2014 for hearing by the order of the Deputy Director dated 20.12.2013, pre-ponement of the matter on the basis of an application being moved by O.P.5 and decided the matter on a pre-poned date that too behind the back of the petitioner, the order passed by the appellate authority becomes bad.

Secondly, so far as the revisional order is concerned, the petitioner contended that the fact that the property was purchased in the names of O.Ps.4 & 5 may be at the instance of O.P.6 and the sale deed remaining absolutely silent with regard to source of spending the money involving the purcha