SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

All these writ petitions involve common questions of fact and law and arise out of the same consolidation proceeding as well as civil dispute between the self-same parties in respect of the same property. As such, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.8245 of 2003 call in question the order dated 08.07.2003 passed by the Commissioner, Land Reforms in Revision Case No.1079 of 1986 (2727 of 2003), whereby, the order of the Director of Consolidation was set aside and order of the Consolidation Officer directing recording of possession as ‘Possession by illegal purchase’ was restored.

3. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.22200 of 2013, on the other hand challenge the order of the Consolidation Officer in recording note of possession ‘Possession by illegal purchase’ in the remarks column of the ROR as reflected in the orders passed in the objection cases, Revision case No.323 of 1985 and Revision Case No.1079 of 1986. So also, these petitioners have filed W.P.(C) No.27112 of 2013, wherein they assail the order dated 14.11.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur in T.S. No.158 of 1998 rejecting their application under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for stay of further proceeding of the suit.

4. For convenience, the petitioners of W.P.(C) No.8245 of 2003 are referred to as ‘Sikim Tenants’ and the petitioners of W.P.(C) Nos.22200 of 2013 and 27112 of 2013 as ‘Marfatdars’.

5. The facts of the case in W.P.(C) No.8245 of 2003, are as follows:-

The dispute relates to Sabik Plot No.1231 measuring Ac.0.24 decimals under Sabik Khata No.122 of village Tirtol, which corresponds to L.R. Plot Nos.1439 and 1440 under L.R. Khata No.94. Said land was originally recorded in the name of the deity, namely, Kanak Durga Thakurani, through its Marfatdar Laxmidhar Ray, with a note of possession in favour of one Siba Das as a Sikim tenant.

It is stated that after the death of the Sikim tenant Siba Das, his sons Jagu and Fagu succeeded him and Fagu subsequently gifted the property by way of a registered gift deed dated 13.02.1943 in favour of one Kusa Das. It is also stated that one Paramananda Das claiming to be adopted son of Jagu Das executed a registered sale deed dated 02.02.1957 in favour of one Surendra Mohapatra, predecessor of the present petitioners, in respect of Ac.0.12 decimals out of the said plot. Subsequent transactions by way of relinquishment and re-transfer of small extents are also said to have taken place.

During consolidation operations, objection cases being Nos.2419/1967, 3181/829 and 2457/105 were filed by the parties claiming right, title and interest over the said plots. The Consolidation Officer, by a common order dated 29.08.1983 held that Sikim tenancy was not heritable and transferable in absence of proof of custom and directed deletion of Sikim status, but ordered recording of possession as ‘ ଲ’ (Possession by illegal Purchase).

Being aggrieved, the matter was carried in revision under Section 37(2) of the OCH & PFL Act before the Director of Consolidation in Revision Case No.323 of 1985, who, by order dated 27.12.1985, interfered with the order of the Consolidation Officer acknowledging valid possession of the petitioners.

Thereafter, the order of the Director of Consolidation was challenged in Revision Case No.1079 of 1986 before the Commissioner, Land Reforms under Section 37 (1) of the Act, who, by order dated 08.07.2003, set aside the same and restored that of the Consolidation Officer inter alia finding that the revision before the Director was not maintainable. Assailing the order of Commissioner, Land Reforms, the petitioners (Sikim tenants) have approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.8245 of 2003.

6. In W.P.(C) No.22200 of 2013, the petitioners, who are the Marfatdars of the deity, assail the foundation of the aforesaid transactions and the consequential entries mad