JUDGMENT :

R.K. Pattanaik, J

1. Both the writ petitions have been filed by the Petitioner assailing the legality and judicial propriety of the impugned order dated 26th August, 2011 (Annexure-1) passed in O.E.A. R.C. Suo Motu Case No.101 of 2008 under Section 38-B of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘OEA Act’) by the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack (O.P.No.2) on the grounds inter alia that the decision is erroneous, arbitrary and beyond jurisdiction and therefore, liable to be interfered with and set aside.

2. The Petitioner contends that O.P.No.2 did not have any jurisdiction in interfering with an order recognizing a tenant’s right in possession of a land on the date of vesting by the OEA authority which is by virtue of an administrative enquiry. It is further contended that the Hukumnama (Annexure-2 series), after due enquiry, having been found to be genuine by the authority under the provisions of the OEA Act, O.P. No.2 acted in excess of jurisdiction in rejecting it without any material to the contrary. As per the Petitioner, the impugned order under Annexure-1 is wholly misconceived in law, inasmuch as, the provisions of Orissa Communa