JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

The defendants are the appellants against a reversing judgment.

2. Respondents as plaintiffs instituted the suit for declaration of right, title, interest and possession over the suit land and other consequential reliefs. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit land is a part of Sabik Khata No.148, Plot No.2770 area of Ac.15.12 decimals. The property originally belongs to the deity Baladev Jew of Keonjhar. Kirtan Sahoo, the predecessor of the plaintiffs, acquired the land described under Schedule–A & B of the plaint on the basis of lease granted by ex-intermediary in the year 1958-1960. The properties described under Schedule-C and B of the plaint were purchased by Kirtan Sahoo. They are in possession of the properties from the time of their predecessor on payment of rent to the appropriate authority. They had established a rice mill on a portion of the land after obtaining permission from the appropriate authority. Subsequently a coke briquettes factory was established over the same. Their residential house situates over a part of the property. They being a lessee under the ex-intermediary and thereafter the State having accepted them as tenants on payment of rent, they are deemed tenants under Sec. 8(1) of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act. When the Tahasildar refused to receive rent on the ground that the property has been recorded in the name of the State in the Hal Settlement record of rights, they instituted the suit.

3. Pursuant to issuance of summons the defendants entered appearance and filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants is that Sabik Plot was having an area of Ac.311.80 dec. The same was recorded in the name of the deity Baldev Jew. The intermediary estate vested in the State on 18.03.1974. After vesting, the properties have been recorded as reserved forest in the Hal settlement record of rights in the name of the State. Thus the State has become the owner of the property. The plaintiffs have no semblance of right, title and interest over the same.

4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed seven issues, which are as follows;

“1. Whether the suit is maintainable?

2. Whether the plaintiffs have any cause of action to bring the suit?

3. Whether the plaintiffs have acquired valid title over the suit land ?

4. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land since 1958 ?

5. Whether the plaintiffs have acquired title by prescription.

6. Whether the entries made in the Hal R.O.R in respect of the suit land are legal ?

7. To what relief, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled ?”

5. To substantiate the case, the plaintiffs had examined six witnesses and on their behalf twenty three number of documents had been exhibited. On behalf of the defendants, one witness was examined.

6. Learned trial court came to hold that the documents filed by the plaintiffs, i.e., rent receipts showing payment of rent to the then Debottar Manager, documents about installation of rice mill and coke briquettes factory are not seriously challenged by the State. Thus the State has granted these documents and virtually admitted about the existence of different structures. There is overwhelming documentary evidence in support of possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Oral evidence of the plaintiffs proves the factum of possession of the plaintiffs after the death of Kirtan Sahoo. Though no application is necessary under Sec. 8(1) of the OEA Act, for settlement of the land, but no where the State has recognized the rights or possession of the plaintiffs over the suit plot. Thus the plaintiffs do not acquire any valid title over the suit land. The plaintiffs do not acquire title over the suit land by adverse possession. The entries in Hal record of rights cannot be declared to be illegal. Held so, learned trial court dismissed the suit. Assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the plaintiffs preferred appeal bef