IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.3947 of 2014 CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA ORDER 01.05.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer: “The petitioner therefore prays that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to admit this writ application and after hearing the petitioner’s advocate issue a writ in nature of certiorari or any other suitable writ quashing order passed vide Annexure-9, 10 and 11. And for this act of kindness the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever”. 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to have purchased a portion of the suit land from its recorded owner vide RSD dated 04.07.2000. It was decided by the Consolidation Officer in objections filed that the vendor of the petitioner had no alienable title. Said orders were challenged in appeal but without success. The matter was further carried in revision. The revisional Court by the impugned order dated 27.01.2014 held as follows; “In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that present petitioner purchased the disputed property from Mihir Kumar Patra., and others vide Regdi. sale Deed No. 1311 dated 04.07.l2000, when the Vendors had no right, Suprava Jena .… Petitioner Represented by Mr.S.K. Nayak-2, Advocate -Versus- Addl. Commissioner, Settlement & Consolidation, Balasore and others .… Opp. Parties Represented by Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, AGA Order No. 11. . title and interest over suit land in view of the Order dated 25.08.1994 passed by Consolidation Officer, Bhadrak in objection Case No.1368/92. So the Regd. sale Deed executed by the Vendors of the present petitioner is a void one. Hence, I do not find any irregularity in the orders of the lower court. So Ii do not like to interefere in the Order's passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Bhadrak. In view of the above, the revision petition, being devoid of any merit is dismissed.” 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the Consolidation Authorities at every stage having examined the factual and legal aspect of the matter have decided the dispute. Nothing has been demonstrated before this Court to show as to how the orders so passed including the impugned order are incorrect or illegal. 6. It goes without saying that this Court sitting in writ jurisdiction would not enter into factual disputes which have been finally decided by the quasi-judicial authorities unless palpable illegality or irregularities are shown. As already stated, nothing has been placed before this Court to persuade it to find fault with the impugned orders. 7. This Court therefore, finds no reason to interfere in the matter. 8. The writ application is therefore, dismissed. (Sashikanta Mishra) Judge Pravakar