The final decree of partition was binding on all parties, and subsequent transactions did not affect the exclusive ownership of the disputed land.

JUDGMENT :

Biswanath Rath, J.

W.P. (C) No. 2180 of 2002 was originally filed by Basant Kumar Sahoo assailing the judgment vide Annexure-4 passed in Consolidation Revision Case No. 148 of 2006 on his death is being represented by his L.Rs. O.J. (C) No. 11572 of 2001 is filed by Sukadev Mallik and another challenging the order passed by the Deputy Director in Appeal Case Nos. 34, 36, 37, 38, 40 & 43 of 1993 vide nnexure-2 and also the order of the Commissioner in Revision Case Nos. 148 & 149 of 1996 whereas in O.J.C. No. 11573 of 2001, Sukadev Mallik again challenged the orders passed by the Deputy Director in Appeal Case Nos. 34, 36, 37, 38, 40 & 43 of 1993 appearing at Annexure-2 as well as the order of the Commissioner in Consolidation Revision Case Nos.148 of 1996 and 149 of 1996 appearing at Annexure-3. Since the parties in all the proceedings are same and the contest remaining between the parties over the same disputed land, this Court decides the cases vide this common judgment.

2. For clarity of the matter, this Court finds Consolidation Revision Case No.148 of 1996 involved objection Case No. 2642 of 1990 concerning L.R. Khata No. 470 at the instance of Debabrata being allowed, challenged in Appeal No. 38 of 1993 and the appeal was allowed. This also involved the Objection case No. 2424 of 1990 at the instance of Sukadeb concerning L.R. Khata No. 470. Objection Case being allowed, Appeal No. 40 of 1993 was preferred and the appeal being allowed, Revision Case No. 148 of 1996 was filed. Similarly, so far as Revision No. 149 of 1996 is concerned, this Court finds the same is off suit of L.R. Khata No. 440, Objection Case No. 2762 of 1990 and Objection Case No. 2423 of 1990 preferred at the instance of Basanta and Sukadeb. Objection Case No. 2762 of 1990 being dismissed as against Basanta, he preferred Appeal No. 34 of 1993, the appeal was allowed. Similarly, Objection Case No. 2423 of 1990 at the instance of Sukadeb being allowed, Appeal 43 of 1993 preferred and allowed and both the orders in Objection Case No. 2762 of 1990 consequently Appeal Case No.34 of 1993 and Objection Case No. 2423 of 1990 involving Appeal No.43 of 1993 were challenged in Revision No. 149 of 1996. From the reading of the cause title portion involving Revision Case No. 149 & 148 of 1996, this Court finds the Revision order find place at Annexure-4 of O.J.C. No. 2180 of 2002 and Annexure-3 to O.J.C. No.11572 of 2002 and O.J.C. No. 11573 of 2002 respectively disclose both these revisions were at the instance of Sukadeb Mallik and Basanti Samal making Basanta Kumar Sahu, the petitioner in O.J.C. No. 2180 of 2002 as party. Further reading of the revisional order also discloses that the above two revisions were directed against the order dated 28.10.1998 passed by the Deputy Director in Appeal Nos. 34, 36, 37, 38, 40 & 43 of 1993 reversing the order dated 26.11.1992 and 15.12.1992 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Marsaghai involving Objection Case Nos. 2762, 2760, 2218, 2642, 2424 & 2423 of 1990 filed under Section 9(3) of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act, 1972.

3. For better appreciation of the facts and allegation involved in the above bunch of proceedings, it is necessary here to bring the genealogy given by the parties, which is as herein below.

Late Mana Sahu
Late Madha								Late Madhu	Late Gadei
Late Sobani Late Sumitra								Late Chintamani	Late Dukhei Late Uluchha	Late Sukadev
								Banambar	Bhikari Radharani	Basanta
Late Dinabandhu	Late Gokhani	Rukmani	Tara			Late Basanti	Late Labanga
Debabrat	Satyabrata	Suvrat	Late Anusaya/ Baidyanath			Priyambada	Sakuntala	Sharmistha	Devjani
			Samir	Sabita	Salila

4. This genealogy appears to the admitted by the present petitioners in all respect except the fact that Bhikari is the adopted son of late Dukhei and Uluchha. While Sobani,