JUDGMENT

A. S. NAIDU, J. — The order dated 10th March, 1993 passed by Addl. District Magistrate, Cuttack in O.E.A. Appeal No.4/1990 is assailed in this Writ application mainly on the ground that the said authority had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal filed under Section 9 of the O.E.A. Act as the order of settle¬ment made in favour of the petitioner was passed under the provi¬sions of the Orissa Tenancy Act.

2. The petitioner claiming to be a tenant in respect of Ac.2.00 lands out of Ac.4.30 appertaining to C.S. Plot Nos.52 and 56 under C.S. Khata No.25 of Mouza-Sasan has asserted, that the said lands originally belonged to the Ex-landlord of Kujang Estate and were recorded under Anabadi Khata No. 25 with a status of “Puratana Patia” in the record of rights published in the year 1929. According to him his ancestor after obtaining due permis¬sion from the ex-intermediary and after being inducted as tenant reclaimed the above lands with considerable expenses and were in cultivating possession of the same by raising paddy crops and by paying land revenue (Bhag) to the ex-landlord who granted rent receipt in token of payment of the same. The estate in question, it is submitted, vested in the State in the year 1954 and the petitioner, who was in possession immediately before vesting, continued to remain in cultivating possession as a tenant without any hindrance from any quarter, but then as the ex-landlord did not submit any “Ekpadia” (rent schedule) in favour of the petitioner, no rent (land revenue) was collected from him. The petitioner therefore approached the Tahasildar, Marsaghai with a prayer to settle the lands in his favour in consonance with the provisions of the Orissa Tenancy Act. The said petition was registered as Revenue Misc. Case No.15/1984. The Tahasildar invited public objections on the claim put forth by the petition¬er. However no objections were received from any quarter within a period of thirty days. After conducting local enquiry through R.I. and perusing the report of the Revenue Inspector and on being satisfied that the petitioner had taken the land on lease on payment of “Salami” to the ex-landlord of Kujang Estate during the year 1950, vide Receipt No.10894 dtd. 12.7.1950 and that the petitioner had paid’ Bhag dues from 1354-55 to 1357-58 Sala and that the petitioner was in cultivating possession since the date of his induction as tenant without any obstruction and that he had completed thirty years of possession held that he had ac¬quired occupancy right over the lands in consonance with the provision of the Orissa Tenancy Act, the Tahasildar by his order dtd. 19.7.1985 directed to correct the R.O.Rs and to record the lands in the name of the petitioner as sthitiban raiyat subject to payment of rent, etc. According to the petitioner in consonance with the order passed by the Tahasildar he paid rent and other amounts as per the order and continued.

3. In the year 1986 some of the villagers of village Bhopal tried to grab the properties which were settled in favour the petitioner and created disturbance in the peaceful possession of the petitioner. It is further submitted that Hadibandhu Swain and some other villagers filed T.S. No.384/1986 challenging the order of settlement made in favour of the petitioner and also to declare that the petitioner had no right, title and interest over the properties. According to the petitioner the then Munsif, Kendrapara dismissed the said suit. Being enraged by the said action, it appears, some of the villagers tried to enter into the lands and disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner was constrained to approach the Civil Court by filing a suit for permanent injunction which was registered as T.S. No.385/1984 against some of the villagers. The then Munsif, Kendrapara after discussing the evidence adduced by both the parties in extenso came to a categorical finding that the plaintiff of the said suit, i.e. the petitioner had