DHANU MALIK SINCE DECEASED THROUGH L.RS. SAVITRI BEWA AND ORS. Vs. LAL SITANSHU SEKHAR SINGH DEO AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE disputed lands which were held towards emoluments of The Office of Gountie the Plaintiff instituted The suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Berhampur for a declaration of his title to the lands on the round that he is a permanent lessee of the lands and for recovery of possession of the same. As he succeeded in the trial Court, the Defendant No. 1 has come up to this Court in Appeal. During the pendency of the appeal in this Court, the Orissa Merged Territories (Village Offices Abolition) Act, 1962 (Act 10 of 1963) came into force. Although this Act was passed in the year 1962, it was enforced in the area to which the disputed properties belong on 1 -4 -1966, that is some time after the present appeal was filed in this Court. It is not disputed before me by either party that under Section 3 of this Act, the properties which are in dispute in this litigation vested in the State free from all encumbrances. Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Act deal with subsequent settlement of lands vested under Section 3 of the Act and the power to settle the lands is vested exclusively in certain revenue authorities. Appeals and revisions are provided under Section 13 of the Act against the orders passed by the revenue Officers and orders passed under Section 13 are treated as final. There can, therefore, be no doubt that after the coming into force of this Act, the Civil Courts cannot any further proceed to decide disputes relating to the properties in suit and it is exclusively within the jurisdiction of revenue Officers to decide as to with whom the land should be settled. In that view of the matter, the appeal pending before this Court becomes infructuous. In view of Section 3 of the Act, the decree passed by the trial Court has also become equally infructuous. The properties of the Plaintiff have by operation of law become vested in the State and have become available for settlement under Sections 5, 6 and 7 thereof.

(2.) MR . Pal, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents has filed in this appeal, the order sheet of the revenue Court showing that since after the passing of the Act, the disputed lands have been settled with the Plaintiff by an order of the revenue Officer. It is stated by Mr. Ghosh on behalf of the Defendant -Appellant that the order obtained by the Respondent from the revenue Court is invalid in as much as contrary to the roles framed under the Act, this order has been obtained from the Additional Tahasildar, whereas, the Officer having jurisdiction to deal with these matters is the Sub -divisional Officer. It is unnecessary for me to deal any further with the several contentions brought to my notice excepting to say that the matter before the revenue Court regarding settlement of the disputed lands does not appear to have become final. It is open to the parties to pursue the remedies available to them under the Act before the authorities empowered under the Act.