JUDGMENT :

Krushna Ram Mohapatra, J.

1. Heard Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.R. Behera, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-opposite party No. 1.

2. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 05.12.2019 (Annexure-5) passed by the Sub-Collector, Puri in Mutation Appeal No. 51 of 2019, whereby he condoned the delay of more than 12 years in filing the said appeal.

3. On the last occasion, this Court suggested learned counsel for the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy available to the petitioners under Section 32 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (for short, 'the Act') for redressal of their grievances. Mr. Patnaik, however, sought for time to address the Court on the said issue. Accordingly, the matter is listed today

4. Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on an application filed under Rule 34 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962 (for short, 'the Rules'), the case land pertaining to Khatian No. 583, Mouza-Puri Sahar, Unit-8, Baseli Sahi under Puri Tahsil (for short, 'the case land') was directed to be recorded in the name of the petitioners in Mutation Case No. 7324 of 2006 vide order dated 05.01.2008 passed by Tahasildar, Puri and accordingly, R.O.R. was corrected in their name.

4.1. Subsequently, after a lapse of more than 12 years, the opposite party No. 2 filed an appeal under Rule 42 of the Rules in Mutation Appeal No. 51 of 2019 before the Sub-Collector, Puri assailing the order passed in Mutation Case No. 7324 of 2006. Since there was a delay of more than 12 years in filing the appeal, a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed for condonation of delay along with memorandum of appeal.

5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, the impugned order has been passed, on 05.12.2019.

6. Mr. Patnaik learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the application was considered in a very mechanical manner and no reason has, been assigned for condonation of an inordinate delay of more than 12 years Since the petitioners have no other remedy available to them to challenge the said order, they have filed this writ petition. He further draws attention of this Court to Section 32 of the Act and paragraph-111 of the Mutation Manual. For ready reference, the same are reproduced hereunder:

Section 32 of the Act;

"32. The Board of Revenue may call for the revise record of any proceeding before '[any officer] from whose decision no appeal lies if such Officer appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or while acting in the exercise of his jurisdiction to have contravened some express provision of law affecting the decision on the merits where such contravention has produced a serious miscarriage of justice and the Board of Revenue, after hearing the parties if they attend shall pass' such order as it seems fit."

XXX XXX XXX XXX

Paragraph-111 of Mutation Manual;

"111. Under Sec. 32 of the Act, the Board of Revenue have powers, with or without petition, to call for and revise any proceedings before any Officer from whose decision no appeal lies. The fact that the Board of Revenue have been vested with this power of revision of any proceedings at any time does not mean that any party to a mutation proceeding can, as a matter of course, move the Board for changing an order passed by a subordinate authority. The statutory rule does not provide for a second appeal or revision after the first appeal and in the absence of such a specific provision the general powers conferred by Sec. 32 cannot be invoked to utilise the Board of Revenue as a Court of second appeal. Powers of control and supervision by the superior authority are discretionary and the authorities exercising such powers are not ordinarily disposed to interfere except in the following classes of cases, namely:

(a) where a subordinate officer has improperly refused to exerci