JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - Defendant is the Appellant against a reversing judgment. Plaintiffs case is that they took lease of 21 acres of Anabadi land appertaining to Khata No. 339 of village Apanda from the then zamindar Samanta Radha Prasanna Das. Plaintiffs, in their turn, leased out 7 acres out of 24 acres of land on bhag to the Defendant under ext. 4 dated 12-2-1952. There was a stipulation that the Defendant would reclaim the land on payment of Rs. 25/- per acre as reclamation costs by the Plaintiffs, that the land should be reclaimed in course of 2 years and after reclamation bhag was payable by the Defendant. For 1360 V.S. Corresponding 10 The Year 1953 Plaintiffs claimed bhag of Rs. 369/-. 2. The Defendant contested the suit asserting that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the Plaintiffs and himself. He advanced a story that he himself took lease of this land from Samanta Radha Prassanna Das. 3. The Rent Suit Officer, Bhadrak, dismissed the Plaintiffs suit on a finding that they had no title to the disputed land. In appeal, the learned District Judge held that the Plaintiffs had prima, facie title to the disputed land and that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant. He accordingly passed a decree as claimed in the plaint. Against the appellate decree the second appeal has been filed. 4. The finding that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant is a pure finding of fact and cannot be assailed in second appeal. It is not clear whether the Rent Suit Officer,. Bhadrak, had power to determine application under the O.T.P. Act. In the absence of the controversy raised by the Defendant challenging the jurisdiction of the Rent Suit Officer, Bhadrak, it cannot be said that he had no such powers. This judgment accordingly proceeds on the footing that the Rent Suit Officer, Bhadrak, in disposing of the case exercised powers under the provisions of the O.T.P. Act. 5. On the finding that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant and on the admitted Plaint case that the Defendant was a bhag tenant, the dispute between the tenant and the landlords comes directly within the mischief of Section 7(1)(d) and (e) of the Orissa Tenants Prosecution Act, 1948. 5. On the finding that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant and on the admitted Plaint case that the Defendant was a bhag tenant, the dispute between the tenant and the landlords comes directly within the mischief of Section 7(1)(d) and (e) of the Orissa Tenants Prosecution Act, 1948. The relevant provisions are: 7. (1) Any dispute between the tenant and the landlord as regards x x x x x (d) failure of the tenant to deliver to the landlord the rent accrued due within two months from the date on which it becomes payable; or (e) the quantity of the produce payable to the landlord as rent x x x x x shall be decided by the Collector on the application of either of the parties. The present suit is for recovery of bhag produce and comes directly within the purview of Sub-clauses (d) and (e). Section 11 prescribes the appeal forum. It says that any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector made under this Act may, within thirty days from the date of such order, appeal to the prescribed superior Revenue Authority whose decision thereon shall be final subject to revision by the Board of Revenue. The decision so arrived at shall not be called in question in any court. Section 13 lays down that the provisions of this Act shall, as far as may be read and construed as forming part of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, or as the case may be of the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913, provided that where any of the provisions of this Act is inconsistent with or repugnant to the provisions of the aforesaid Acts, it shall prevail and the provisions of the aforesaid Acts shall be deemed to be modified to that extent. Whatever be the provisions regarding the appellate forum in the O.T. Act, the appeal must lie in respect of the present application to the prescribed superior Revenue Authority u/s 11 of the Act. The appeal to the District Judge is therefore incompetent and without jurisdiction. 6. Whatever be the provisions regarding the appellate forum in the O.T. Act, the appeal must lie in respect of the present application to the prescribed superior Revenue Authority u/s 11 of the Act. The appeal to the District Judge is therefore incompetent and without jurisdiction. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned District Judge is set aside, as this point has not been raised either before the lower appellate Court or in the High Court by the Appellant, and as there is no appearance for the Respondents in this Court, parties to bear their own costs throughout. Final Result : Allowed