The main legal point established is the limitation of the Tahasildar's power in correcting the R.O.R. and map, and the Commissioner's authority to delegate jurisdiction, as well as the need for a liberal view in condoning delay under Section 15(b) of the Act.

ORDER

K.R. Mohapatra, J. - Heard Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Neelakantha Panda, learned counsel for the opposite party No.4 and Mr. Dillip Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite party Nos.1 to 3.

2. The petitioners in this writ petition seek to assail the order dated 06.11.2007 (Annexure-1) passed by the Joint Commissioner, Settlement & Consolidation, Berhampur in S.R.P. No. 802 of 2006 filed by the opposite party No.4.

3. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the opposite party No.4 filed the aforesaid revision to correct the final R.O.R. and the map in respect of Hal Plot No. 204, Holding No.198 to an extent of Ac.0.08 decimals situated in village Kurlughati under Nabarangpur Tahasil in the district of Nabarangpur (for short, 'the case land'), on the basis of his possession and succession. The revisional authority without condoning the delay proceeded with the matter. At the stage of final hearing, the Joint Commissioner without assigning any good reason condoned the delay in filing the revision petition holding that the land is recorded in the status of 'Gramakantha' and remitted the matter back to the Tahasildar, Nabarangpur-opposite party No.3 to cause a field inspection and effect correction of the map and record the case land in favour of the Opp. Party No.4 (petitioner therein) on the basis of the possession and entitlement. It is his submission that Section 15 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (for short, 'the Act') confers a power on the Board of Revenue/Commissioner to correct the R.O.R. He has no jurisdiction to delegate such power to the Tahasildar, Nabarangpur-Opposite Party No.3 to effect correction in the ROR or map without any specific direction thereto. The Tahasildar, Nabarangpur-opposite party No.3 while acting upon the direction of the Joint Commissioner under Section 15 of the Act, exercises power under Rule 34 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962 (for short, 'the Rules') and cannot take a final decision with regard to entitlement of the party. He can only give effect to the correction, if any, in the R.O.R. pursuant to the direction of the Joint Commissioner under Section 15 of the Act. In support of his case, he relied upon the decision in the case of Sarat Chandra Sahu -v- Commissioner of Land Records & Settlement, Orissa, Cuttack, reported in 82 (1996) CLT-321, wherein it has been held at paragraph-10 as follows:

'10. While quashing the order passed by the Commissioner we also notice what the Commissioner has really not adjudicated the revision except giving a direction to the Tahasildar to cause an inquiry in respect of the genealogy. The revision was preferred as admitted, under Section 15 of the Act. Under Section 15(b) the Commissioner has been given the authority to decide the grievance of the parties in relation to final publication of record of rights. A statutory power by a statutory authority has to be exercised in a proper manner so that the litigants have a sense of satisfaction that their grievance, have been appropriately dealt with. The Commissioner should have done well to address himself on the merits of the case. But instead of doing so he passed the orders of remand. While we are of the view that the operative portion of the impugned order relating to remand is absolutely unsustainable, yet we feel in the interest of justice the claim of the revisionist should be considered by the revisional authority within the parameter of revisonal jurisdiction. As there has been no adjudication on that score we feel it is appropriate that the Commissioner should re-hear the matter and decide it afresh. To avoid delay, we direct the parties to appear before the revisional authority on 28.06.1996 on which date the Commissioner shall fix a date of hearing and dispose of the revision by the end of October, 1996. '

3.1 He further submits that relying upon the decision in the case of Smt. B