JUDGMENT :

Dipak Misra, J. - Soundness of the orders passed by the Consolidation authorities under the provisions of Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act(in short, 'the Act') by Annexures 3,4 and 5 is called in question in the present writ application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the petitioner.

After stating pleadings and contentions of counsel for both sides, it is held :

5. From the analysis of the rival contentions it becomes beamingly clear that the sole controversy rests on the issue whether the order of settlement passed under the OEA Act would enure to the benefit of others if parties are governed by Mohammedan Law.

6. Before we go to the different aspects of Mohammedan Law and the extension of benefit to a co-sharer we would like to ascertain whether there had been partition or the parties were in ' jointness. The Consolidation Officer in his order has observed as follows :

"Opposite party Karim Khan states that the property is joint and as per their mutual arrangement they are in possession in the field separately.

This being the admission of Karim Khan, it can be concluded that they are in jointness. This aspect is al