ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard counsel on both sides.

3. It appears that the appellant moved the Tehsildar for a declaration that she was the tenant of the land in question before its vesting in the State Government. The Tehsildar examined this contention and came to the conclusion that the appellant is a tenant in possession of the holding under an intermediary. The consequence of this finding under Section 8(1) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1978 (sic 1951) was that she had to be deemed to be a tenant of the State Government and was entitled to hold the land in the same rights and subject to the same restrictions and liabilities as under the intermediary immediately before the vesting. On the Tehsildar having found the appellant to be in possession of the holding in question as a tenant under an intermediary prior to the vesting of the estate in the State Government, she became entitled to the consequence arising out of the deeming fiction. When the Board constituted under the Act became aware of this order, it exercised power under Section 38-B, called for and examined the record of the proceedings in which the Tehsildar had taken the aforementioned decision and having f