In a case of rival tenancy, though the landlord is common to the Petitioners and the opp. parties, the dispute between the Petitioners and the opp. parties are not one and the same. Each is a separate dispute vis-a-vis a single Petitioner on one side and opp. parties on the other side.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Padhi, J. - The orders of appellate authority as well as the revisional authority negativing the claims of the Petitioners as the tenants (Bhagchasis) under opp. party No. 1 are challenged in this writ application.

2. The Petitioners who are ten in number sought declaration as Bhagchasis under the deity, opp. party No. 1 u/s 15(1)(b) of the Orissa land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). The petitions were numbered as O.L.R. Case Nos. 1356, 1360, 1366, 1369, 1370, 1407, 1412, 1413, 1414 and 1415 of 1976. In the claim petitions the Petitioners averred that opp. party No. 1 Shri Radhakanta Deb is the owner of A. 1.31 decimals of land. Out of this A. 1.31 decimals, nine Petitioners claimed tenancy right regarding specific A. 0.13 decimals of land while one Petitioner claimed A. 0.14 decimals and prayed for such declaration. Opp. parties 2 and 3 filed objections and claimed to be Bhagchasis under the deity for the total land of A. 1.13 decimals and refuted the claim of the Petitioners.

3. All the O.L.R. cases were clubbed together and one set of evidence was adduced by both the sides, after converting the cases to one u/s 16 of the Act, as the identity of the tenants were in dispute. The learned O.L.R. Court by order dated 30-10-1978, declared the Petitioners to be the Bhagchasis under the deity and not the opp. parties 2 and 3 (Annexure-2). Opp. parties 2 and 3 being aggrieved by the orders of the learned Tahasildar carried two appeals which were numbered as O. L. R. Appeal Nos. 501 of 1978 and 504 of 1978. The learned appellate Court also heard both the appeals together and disposed of it by one common judgment and dismissed the appeals.

4. Opp. parties 2 and 3 carried two revisions which were numbered as O.L.R. Revisions 215 and 216 of 1980. The learned revisional Court by its order dated 23rd December, 1981 allowed the revisions and held that opp. parties 2 and 3 were the tenants under the deity (opp. party No. 1) and not the Petitioners. The main plank of argument on behalf of the Petitioners is that as the Petitioners had filed independent applications u/s 15(1)(b) which were allowed, the opp. parties were bound to file 10 appeals and 10 revisions. Though the learned Tahasildar had clubbed together all the applications u/s 15(1)(b) and had disposed of all the applications in one judgment, still as claim of each of the Petitioners was allowed ten appeals should have been filed. Regarding the merits of the case the Petitioners submit that the authorised agent's statement was unverified and should not have been accepted by the revisional authority. In support of the above submissions, the learned advocate for the Petitioners relies on 41 (1975) CLT 714 Abdul Rahim and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors. The learned advocate for the opp. parties 2 and 3 on the other hand, submits that:

(a) though 10 applications were filed but in fact they are one and the same as the boundary given by each of the Applicants same;

(b) that the application of each of the Applicants being identical, and as they claimed joint tenancy, it is one dispute; and

(c) that as all the cases were clubbed together and one set of evidence was adduced and one judgment was passed two appeals were maintainable; and in support of the above submissions the learned advocate for the opp. parties relies on Karunakar Panda Vs. Durgabati Bewa and Others ILR 1970 Cutt. 814 Kalituki Sahuani v. Sodi Buchiamma and Ors. AIR 192 Cal. 135 Moosa Soleman Salehji and Ors. v. Secretary of State and AIR 1928 Mad. 463 Perumal Nadar and Ors.

5. Regarding the merit of the case the learned revisional Court by taking into consideration the evidence of the boundary witnesses examined by opp. parties 2 and 3, the Jamabandi Register, submitted to the Tahasildar containing the names of the opp. parties as tenants and the admission of the authorised agent and disbelieving the evidence adduced on behalf of the Applicants has given the finding that the opp. parties 2 and 3