writing of the l e ssor, assign or under lot or otherwise part with the possession of t h e whole of the demised land or any par t thereof which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld and in compliance thereof, the sale was effected in favour of the p etitioner vide Annexure- 6 in the year 2006, which was followe d by the proceeding in M utation Case No. 135 of 2007 with the issuance of RoR as well as a t Annexure-8 but then, Mutation Appeal N o. 4 of 2008 was filed by the Tahasildar, Tangi, Choudwar, Cut t ack and others, which w as disposed of vide Annexure-9. As earli e r stated, the order unde r Annexure-9 was challenged and confirme d by the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha and in so far as the pr o ceeding in Misc. Case No. 43 of 2004 is concerned, which is alleg e d to be an action vitiat e d by fraud, it is made to reveal from the i m pugned order under An n exure-1 that the record of the proceeding was not traceable but su b sequently, it was produced. In so far as the decision of the Additio n al Tahasildar, Choudwar in Misc. Case N o . 43 of 2004 by order d ated 27th April, 2005 is concerned, the earlier order on 27th December, 2004 was revoked. In fact, the pr o ceeding seeking resumption of the lease hold land was subsequentl y recalled in Misc. Case N o . 43 of 2004 by order dated 27th April, 20 0 5. On a reading of the s aid order dated 27th April, 2005, such re s umption was recalled wi t h a conclusion that the lease was granted in favour of the vendor of the petitioner in the year 1982 an d in the meantime, twe n ty-two years have gone by, therefore, the same cannot be recalled as per the provisions of the OGLS Act and Rules framed thereun d er. The order dated 27th April, 2005 in M isc. Case No. 43 of 200 4 was never challenged thereafter. In other words, the decision to r ecall the earlier dated 27th December, 200 4 in Misc. Case No. 43 of 2 004 attained finality.
