An appeal against a settlement order under Section 8-A of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act must be filed within sixty days from the date of the order. The appellate authority does not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal without leave of the court.

R. N. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) STATE of Orissa, sole defendant in a suit for title, possession and injunction, is in appeal against the reversing judgment -and decree of the learned Additional district Judge of Puri.

( 2 ) THE disputed property is 30 decimals of land appertaining partly to two plots being 1466 and 1507. There are two tanks located in these two plots. Plaintiffs claimed that their predecessor-in-interest, Balanam Padhan, was the ex-intermediary in respect of the disputed property. The estate vested under the provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) in 1959 and, on an application made under Section 8-A of the Act made on 15-9-1959. Claim Case No. 327/59-60 was registered and by order dated 31-12- 19,60, the property was settled with the applicant. Some villagers on 10-7-1961 preferred an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate who remitted the matter for fresh disposal after vacating the order of settlement. On remand, the Estate Abolition Collector after hearing parties rejected the application. Against the rejection, plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the additional District Magistrate and the matter was again remitted to the Collector under the Act for a fresh disposal. On this occasion, the claim was again rejected. Plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate and before the same was disposed of, plaintiffs filed the present suit on 14-51966 when the management of the tanks was transferred to the local Gram panchayat. Plaintiffs claimed that the appeal against the order dated 31-121960 did not lie and bar of limitation having set in, the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to vacate the order of the Collector. The settlement dated 31-121960 was valid and operative. On behalf of the State, it was claimed that the suit was not maintainable in view of Section 39 of the Act and, at any rate, plaintiffs had no cause of action.

( 3 ) THE trial court found that the settlement under Section 8-A of the Act was not a valid one inasmuch as the requirements of the section were not fulfilled. There was no illegality in entertaining the appeal beyond the period of limitation, particularly when no objection had been invited as required under section 8-A (2) of the Act. Plaintiffs instead of challenging the legality of the appellate order had participated in the proceeding subsequent to remand. The estate Abolition Collector having refused to make a settlement, the present suit was barred under Section 39 of the Act Thus the trial court dismissed the suit.

( 4 ) THE learned Appellate Judge came to hold that the original order of settlement remained valid because the appeal filed beyond the period of limitation did not lie and no valid order could be made on the basis of the appeal. Accordingly, he set aside the decree of the trial court and allowed the plaintiffs' stand. This reversing decree is now impugned in appeal.

( 5 ) BEFORE dealing with the merits of the matter, the data on the record which are no more in dispute may first be collated. Balaram Padhan, predecessor-ininterest of the plaintiffs, was the ex-intermediary of the disputed plots. His estate vested by a notification made under Section 3-A of the Act. On 15-91959 balaram Padhan made an application under Section 8-A of the Act and the estate Abolition Collector registered Claim Case No. 327/59-60, on the basis of the said application. He directed issue of public notice for invitation of objections. In terms' of the said direction, notice was served end on 1-12-1960, the Estate Abolition Collector recorded the following order;-

"due notice of the claim under khas possession has been published. No objection has yet been received. Seen the report of the Nayab tahasildar. Lands as detailed below are settled with the ex-intermediary at an annual rent of Rupees 4. 75 p. per acre. . . . . . . . . which I consider to be fair and equitable and proportionate cess. . . . . . . . . "