The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit relating to a matter which any officer or other competent authority is empowered by or under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 to decide.

JUDGMENT :

D.P. Mohapatra. J.

1. This second appeal by the Defendant is directed against the reversing judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Puri decreeing -the Plaintiffs' suit. The Respondents filed the suit (O.S. No. 373 of 1959) in the court of the Munsif, Puri for declaration of title, confirmation of possession, in the alternative, recovery of possession and for correction of has settlement of records of right. The suit property constitutes a thatched house on sabik plot No. 489 (Ac. 12 decimals) under sabik holding No. 32 corresponding to hal plot No. 548 under holding No. 84 in mauza Subalpur under Pipili P.S. in the District of Puri.

The gist of the Plaintiffs' case is that, their ancestors purchased the suit-land from the recorded owner in the year 1915 and were in continuous possession of the same. The Plaintiffs, as their heirs, own and possess the said property. The Defendant (Appellant) was permitted to occupy the suit house for a period of 1 year from Baisakha, 1959 till Baisakha, 1960. Thereafter, he gave up possession of the same in favour of the Plaintiffs. During the Hal Settlement Operation (in 1967), the Defendant managed to get his name recorded as a sikimi tenant in respect of the suit-property. Thereafter, the Defendant forcibly occupied the suit-house on 5-11-1969. On these allegations, the Plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the reliefs stated above.

2. The Defendant took the plea that his ancestors were possessing the suit-property as tenants lander the recorded owners. They constructed the dwelling house and granery on the suit-land. According to the Defendant, after the death of his father, about 40 years back, he has been in continuous possession of the suit-property. He asserts that the Hal Settlement record-of-right has been prepared after due enquiry at, the spot and with consent of the Plaintiffs. He claimed to have acquired occupancy right in the suit-property. The Defendant further alleged that in a proceeding initiated under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 ('O.L.R. Act' for short), his claim to be declared a raiyat has been accepted by the Revenue Officer, Pipili on 27-9-1969. The Defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit.

On the pleading of the parties, the trial court framed six issues, of which issue numbers 3 and 6 are relevant for the present purpose. They are

(1) whether the Defendant is an occupancy raiyat and not liable for ejectment?

(6) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try the suit and it is barred by provision of O.L.R. Act?

On consideration of the materials on record, the trial court came to hold that he has no jurisdiction to try the suit since it is barred under provisions of Section 67, O.L.R. Act. He further came to hold that the case of the Plaintiffs that the Defendant was licensee in respect of the suit-property fails. The Defendant has failed to prove the origin and terms of tenancy and hence his case of acquisition of sikimi right over the suit-property also fails. In view of the finding regarding lack of jurisdiction of the, Civil Court, the trial court dismissed the suit.

3. On appeal by the Plaintiffs (Respondents) the lower appellate court reversed the decision of the trial court and held that the bar u/s 67, O.L.R. Act does not operate in the present case and the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He, further held that, the Defendant is neither sthitiban tenant nor sikimi tenant of the suit-property He, therefore, decreed the Plaintiffs' suit in toto. It is pertinent to mention here that the Hal Settlement record-of-right finally published in 1967 shows the Plaintiffs to be the sthitiban tenants in respect of the suit-property. And the Defendant to be in possession thereof as a sikimi tenant under the former. On the question of jurisdiction the lower appellate court has proceeded on the basis that the declaration by the Revenue Officer that the Defendant is a raiyat in respect of the suit-property i