JUDGMENT :

B.R. SARANGI, J.

The appellants, being opposite parties no. 3 to 6 before the writ Court, have filed this intra-Court appeal impugning the order dated 15.12.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 21270 of 2015, whereby, while allowing the writ petition, the order dated 16.11.2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Settlement, Sambalpur in R.P. Case No. 76 of 2014 has been set aside.

2. The factual matrix of the case in hand is that the present appellants, as the revision petitioners, filed an application under Section 15 (b) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act,1958 and Rules framed thereunder before the Addl. Commissioner Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur registered as R.P. Case No. 76 of 2014, wherein the present private respondents were impleaded as contesting opposite parties, for recording the land in question separately in their name by correction of Record of Right (ROR). The appellants pleaded that Sabik khata no.14/1 of village Mochigaon measuring Ac.1.94 decimals, which corresponds to Sabik plot no.5 measuring Ac.1.86 decimals and plot no.90/225 measuring Ac.0.08 decimals, originally recorded in the name of their grandfather, namely, Lambodar Roul. Plot no. 90/225 measuring Ac.0.08 decimals was acquired by the State Government vide L.A. Case no. 01/1958-59. Therefore, the remaining area of Ac.1.86 decimals was exclusively recorded in the name of grandfather of the appellants, who was in absolute physical possession over the same, and after death of their grandfather, the present appellants have been in continuous possession over such land with its right and title. During the last settlement operation, the settlement authorities recorded the name of father of the appellants in respect of the suit land and also included the name of father of the private respondents. Therefore, the appellants prayed that hal khata no.72, plot no.6 corresponding to sabik plot no.5 should be exclusively recorded in the name of the appellants and the name of the private respondents be deleted and accordingly necessary correction be carried out in the ROR. On being noticed, the private respondents advanced their arguments contending that the case land was in joint possession of the ancestors of the parties and after them, the appellants and the private respondents, being the legal heirs, are possessing said land without any interference from any quarter. Considering the possession of the land, the settlement authority in the settlement operation has prepared the ROR jointly. The question of delay was also raised, as the revision petition was filed beyond the statutory period of limitation. The revisional authority called for parawise report from the Tahasildar and Addl. Sub-Collector (Settlement), Keonjhar to ascertain the fact of possession of the parties over the case land. Accordingly, the Tahasildar reported the fact of possession in favour of the present appellants whereas the report of the Addl. Sub-Collector (Settlement), Keonjhar reveals the name of sabik recorded tenant who was the common ancestor of the present appellants. On the basis of the pleadings available on record, the revisional authority framed as many as five issues and, while considering the issue nos.2 and 5 regarding right, title and interest of the parties over the disputed land and the question of limitation, came to a definite finding that the application has been filed beyond the statutory period of limitation and the common ancestors of the present appellants having been made available only in sabik recorded tenant of the suit land, the grandfather of the private respondents are no way concerned to such property and wrongly the name of grandfather of the private respondents has been included with the name of grandfather of the appellants in respect of the case land during hal settlement and, as such, the same needs to be corrected by deleting the name of Siropani Roul from the suit khata. While considering the question of l