JUDGMENT :

A.K. RATH, J.

1. This is a defendant’s appeal against reversing judgment.

2. An area of Ac. 20.03 dec. of land appertaining to Sabik Khata No. 20 which corresponds to Major Settlement Khata No. 59 of Village-Baidharnagar, District-Deogarh is the subject-matter of dispute.

3. Prafulla Kumar Pradhan, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, as plaintiff instituted the suit for a declaration that the entry in the major settlement ROR is illegal and erroneous. Case of the plaintiff was that the suit schedule land was recorded in the name of Purusotam Mahakul alias Pradhan during 1925-26 settlement of ex-State Bamra. The legal heirs of the recorded tenant alienated the land in favour of the plaintiff. When there was a cloud of suspicion over his title, he instituted T.S. No. 2 of 1972 in the Court of the learned Munsif, Deogarh against the defendant for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mesne profits. The suit was decreed. Title Appeal No. 45/15/12 of 1974-77 filed by the defendant in the Court of the learned District Judge, Sumbalpur was dismissed. In Execution Case No. 16 of 1975, possession was delivered to him through process of Court. Since then the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. He used to pay rent. But then, in the major settlement, the suit land has been recorded as “Abada Jyogya Anabadi” in the name of Raj Sarkar. The entry is illegal. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

4. Defendant entered contest and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. Case of the defendant was that the suit land was Gounti-rayati land. The same was governed by Revenue Rules, ex-State, Bamra prior to enactment of the Orissa Merged Territories (Village Offices Abolition) Act (10 of 1963) (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The lands were not private properties of the village officer at any point of time. The administration of all village offices in ex-State, Bamra was run by the village officers, namely, Gountias. The Gountias held intermediary interest by virtue of their office over the lands assessed to the land revenue with the village boundary in between the ex-ruler on one hand and the actual cultivator on the other. Gountias were the servants of the ex-State, Bamra. Purusottam was appointed as Gountia of several villages including Village- Baidharnagar during the Mc. Ferson survey settlement, 1927-28. All the abandoned assessed lands included in one holding were recorded as Gounti-rayati in the name of the village officer Purusottam. He was responsible for payment of land revenue assessed for the land. He had the option under the Bamra Revenue Rules, 1929 either to cultivate the land himself or through subjects and realize the land revenue. The interest of Purusottam was the incident of his village office. Such interest always ran with the village office. Purusottam resigned in 1930. The village office was not heritable. The descendants of Gountias who held the village office could not claim it by dint of his heir-ship. To hold the village office was always followed by appointment through heirs or preferred to, if he had satisfied the qualification for appointment. One Nanda Munda was appointed as the Gountia of village in between 1930-1937. He was in possession of the land during his tenure of Gountiship. Kutartha Pradhan son of Purusottam was appointed as Gountia of the village by the ex-State of Bamara in the year 1937 till 1955. He was removed from service in 1955, since he failed to discharge the duties and responsibilities of the village officer. After removal, he lost all his service benefits which included the right to possess or lease out the suit holdings. Since none applied for appointment of Gountia of the village, the Government used to run the village office by a Patwari, a Government servant in addition to his other normal duties assigned to him. The lands under the suit holding were leased out to the reside