Section 67 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960, bars the jurisdiction of civil courts to decide matters that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act, including suits for eviction of tenants and realization of arrear rent.

JUDGMENT :

J.K. Mohanty, J. - Plaintiffs- (Respondent No. 2 and 3) claiming themselves as the Managers and Marfatdars of Plaintiff No. 1, the Lord Jagannath, filed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit lands belonging to Plaintiff No. 1 and for mesne profits from the year 1971-72.

2. The plaint case is that the suit lands measuring Ac.1.38 cents belonging to Plaintiff No. 1 were in their possession and management since the time of their ancestors. They were utilising the usufructs thereof for offering Bhoga to the deity. They were getting the lands cultivate through tenants and were obtaining the Rajbhag from them. In the year 1964 they inducted Defendant No. 2 as a tenant, but as Defendant No. 2 did not pay any Rajbhag, they filed O.L.R. Case No. 274 of 1966 before the Revenue Officer, Kodala for realisation of Rajbhag. In that, proceeding Defendant No. 2 denied the landlordship of the Plaintiffs and took the plea that be had been inducted as the tenant by Defendant No. 1. The said O.L.R. Case was dismissed with an observation that Plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 should establish their right in a proper court of law. Hence the suit.

3. Defendants filed a joint written statement wherein they have admitted the title of Plaintiff No. 1, the deity, over the suit lands, but they have denied the claim of Plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 that they were in possession and management of the suit lands since the time of their ancestors. According to them Defendant No. 1 was in possession and enjoyment of the suit lands since the time of his ancestors and Defendant No. 2 was inducted as the tenant for cultivating the suit lands in the year 1963. It was further pleaded that after enactment of Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954 (Orissa Act No. 11 of 1955) the Administrator is empowered to file any suit on behalf of Plaintiff No. 1, the deity, so the suit filed by the Plaintiffs was not maintainable. Further as Defendant No. 1 has been in possession and management of the suit lands for more than the statutory period, he was perfected his title over the same by way of adverse possession. After hearing both parties the learned Subordinate Judge held that Plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 are the marfatdars and managers of the suit lands on behalf or Plaintiff No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 was inducted as a tenant by them and decreed the suit. In appeal before the Addl. District Judge, Ganjam-Boudh, Berhampur the decision of the subordinate Judge was upheld. Hence the appeal.

4. Both the courts below on a careful consideration of the evidence on record have come to the conclusion that the Plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 are the Managers and Marfatdars of the suit lands on behalf of Plaintiff No. 1, the deity. After hearing learned Counsel for both sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am also in agreement with the learned courts below that the Plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 are the Managers and Marfatdars of the suit land on behalf of Plaintiff No. 1, the deity.

5. Mr. Naidu, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, submitted that the suit is not maintainable as the Administrator has not been made a party and these Plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 are not competent to file the suit. In support of his contention he relied on Section 33 of Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954. According to him, only the Committee shall be entitled, to take and be in possession of all movable and immovable properties belonging to the 'Temple'. 'Temple' as defined in Sub-section (d) of Section 2 of the Puri Shri Jagannath Temple (Administration) Act, 1952 means the temple of Lord Jagannath at Puri, other temples within its premises, all their appurtenant and subordinate shrines, other sacred places and tanks and any additions which may be made thereto after the commencement of this Act. Thus It is seen that this relates to the properties belonging to the temple only where others have no interest. In this case the Plaintiffs have pleaded that the usufructs of the lands have been enjoyed by the