JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, J. - The suit is for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The disputed land consists of one cent of land in Survey No. 503 in village Boragan within Aska Taluk. Plaintiff's case is that the disputed land belonged to the Government and was assigned to her husband who executed a registered sale deed (Ex. 2) on 13.8.1955 in her favour. The Defendants, who are Bauries of the village, threatened dispossession and hence the suit. The defence case is that the Plaintiff husband encroached upon the suit-site which is a village poromboke. On the objection of the Defendants, Plaintiff's husband was found to have mad the encroachment and an order of eviction was passed. No patta has been granted to the Plaintiff's husband and neither the Plaintiff nor her husband was ever in possession. The learned Munsif found that the Plaintiff had a good title. On a finding that she had been dispossessed, he passed a decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The learned Subordinate Judge, in appeal, held that the Plaintiff failed to establish a valid title; and even though she proved her possession, it fell short of the statutory period of 12 years and she had acquired no title by prescription. He accordingly dismissed the Plaintiff's suit. Against the Appellate decree the Plaintiff has filed the second appeal. 2. Mr. Misra advanced the following contentions : (i) the learned Sub- Judge's finding that the assignment made in favour of the Plaintiff's husband was done without following Board's Standing Order No. 21, was contrary to the materials on record; (ii) even assuming that the revenue authorities committed procedural irregularities in the matter of making assignment, the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction to declare the grant as invalid; and (iii) the finding of the learned Sub-Judge that the order of assignment is invalid unless it is followed by issue of a Patta, is contrary to law. Each of these contentions requires careful examination. 3. The first contention necessitates an enumeration of the admitted facts of the case. Plaintiff's husband encroached upon the disputed site which is a village poromboke in the year 1935 (Village Plan Ex. A dated 1-9-1935). He applied for the settlement of the and by an application Ex. B dated 15.8.1918. The Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O.), Ghumsur, inspected the spot on 28-1-1949. In his inspection note (Ex. Plaintiff's husband encroached upon the disputed site which is a village poromboke in the year 1935 (Village Plan Ex. A dated 1-9-1935). He applied for the settlement of the and by an application Ex. B dated 15.8.1918. The Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O.), Ghumsur, inspected the spot on 28-1-1949. In his inspection note (Ex. C), he concluded that there was no sufficient space for the free movement of the Bauries of the street. He recommended removal of the encroachment. The Collector of Ganjam passed an order (Ex. D) dated 19-2-1949 directing eviction. On 19-5-1950 Plaintiff's husband moved the revenue authorities by a petition (Ex. 3) for the settlement of the land. On this there was again an inspection by the R.D.O. and the order of assignment (Ex. 1) was passed on 8-4-1952 settling the land with the Plaintiff's husband. This order was communicated to him by the Tahasildar, Aska, as per Ex. 4 on 14-1-1952. No patta has, however, been issued in pursuance of the order of assignment. Though there was an order of assignment settling the disputed land with the Plaintiff's husband by a competent revenue authority, whose jurisdiction has not been questioned, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the order of assignment conferred no title on the ground that there were certain procedural irregularities before the final order was passed and that unless Patta was issued, Plaintiff's husband did not acquire any title. In his conclusion he committed a number of errors of record. Ex. 3 is the application dated 19-5-1950 filed by the Plaintiff's husband praying for settlement of the land. On the application itself, the R.D.O. passed the following order: Tahasildar-Take steps to assign the area to the Applicant which I did not declare as objectionable. The learned Subordinate Judge misconstrued this order and wrongly came to the conclusion that the R.D.O. passed the final order of assignment on that very day without following any rule. After the direction was given by the R.D.O., the office of the Tahasildar published a notice (Ex. 3/a) on 21-9-1950 inviting objections to the settlement of the land with the Plaintiff's husband. The Tahasildar, Aska, in a letter (Ex. 3/b) dated 12-3-1952 specifically brought to the notice of the R.D.O. the fact that the records did not clarify as to which land was considered unobjectionable for settlement. 3/a) on 21-9-1950 inviting objections to the settlement of the land with the Plaintiff's husband. The Tahasildar, Aska, in a letter (Ex. 3/b) dated 12-3-1952 specifically brought to the notice of the R.D.O. the fact that the records did not clarify as to which land was considered unobjectionable for settlement. It is, however, to be noted the learned Subordinate Judge considered the assignment bad as the previous orders of the R.D.O. and the Collector evidenced by Exs. C and D were not brought to the notice of the then R.D.O. by the Tahasildar, Aska. This is an official irregularity according to him. The next irregularity pointed out by him is that under Board's Standing Order No. 21, Clause (2), Sub-clause (xii), the order of assignment should he communicated not only to all the parties concerned, but to the Panchayat. There is no dispute that the order of assignment was not communicated to the Panchayat. From the aforesaid discussion it would be apparent that the objections were invited in due course and the settlement was made. The only irregularities committed are that : (i) the order passed by one of the predecessors of the R.D.O. directing eviction was not brought to the notice of the then R.D.O. ordering assignment and (ii) the final order of assignment was not communicated to the Panchayat. The learned Subordinate Judge was, however, not correct in saying that notice inviting objections was not issued. He was also wrong in saying that on the very day the application was filed by the Plaintiff's husband, the R.D.O. practically granted assignment. The two irregularities, pointed out above, are very minor and do not touch the root of the matter. Those irregularities do not affect the competence of the revenue authorities to make the grant. 4. It is remarkable that the series of decisions of the Madras High Court, which have settled the law that procedural irregularities in the matter of making such grants do not affect the validity of the grants and the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to treat them as void unless the revenue authorities acted outside the scope of their authority were not brought to the notice of the Courts below. It is not the case of either party that the R.D.O., Ghumsur, had no authority to make assignment of village porombokes. So it was not outside the scope of his authority. It is not the case of either party that the R.D.O., Ghumsur, had no authority to make assignment of village porombokes. So it was not outside the scope of his authority. If in the discharge of the duties, within the authority conferred upon, certain irregularities are committed, they cannot vitiate the order of settlement. It would be worthwhile to notice some of the important decisions in this regard. 5. In P. Reddy v. R. Reddy ILR 18 Mad. 434. a Bench of which Sri Muthuswami Iyer, J. was a member held thus: Dharkast rules are departmental and if they are infringed, the remedy for such infringement is also departmental. Irregularities in observing those rules constitute no valid ground of interference by the Civil Courts with a grant of land made by the Government. The land in dispute is entered in the pymash account as waste and as such it is at the disposal of Government. It is not competent to the Civil Courts to set aside a grant made by an officer competent to make the grant. In Secy. of State v. Kasturi Reddi ILR 26 Mad. 268, Bashyam Iyengar, J. observed that the bulk of the Dharkhast rules, which are in the nature of instructions issued by Government to the various officers concerned, as to the principles which should guide them in entertaining or rejecting applications for grant of various descriptions of land and determining to which of several competing Applicants the grant should be made. If at all, and the procedure to be adopted by then, do not concern the Civil Courts. To the same effect was the view in M. Vandayan v. Secy. of State ILR 29 Mad. 461. It was made clear therein that the matter would be different if the revenue authorities purporting to act under the Dharkhast rules acted outside the scope of their authority. Otherwise it is not open to the Civil Courts to assume to themselves the Appellate powers thus conferred on other authorities. All the aforesaid decisions have been reviewed in R. Sivaji Rao Saheb Seervai Vs. Akilandathammal and Others, . The learned Subordinate Judge's view that some of the irregularities committed made the assignment invalid, is contrary to law and cannot be supported. 6. All the aforesaid decisions have been reviewed in R. Sivaji Rao Saheb Seervai Vs. Akilandathammal and Others, . The learned Subordinate Judge's view that some of the irregularities committed made the assignment invalid, is contrary to law and cannot be supported. 6. The next question for consideration is whether title is conferred by the Patta granted in pursuance of the assignment order or the order of assignment is the source of title. This question also has been concluded by a number of decisions which were not brought to the notice of the courts below. In Sampathu Rao Nainar v. Appaswamy Nainar 1930 M.W.N. 385 a review of the entire position was made and the learned Single Judge summed up the matter as follows: In cases therefore where Government is not the owner of the land, the mere issue of a Patta in favour of a person does not operate in law to convey title to the land in the pattadar to the prejudice of the real owner. The Patta in such cases is only a memorandum of the extent of land and the Government assessment due thereon. It may be en titled to such weight, as the Court thinks fit in the circumstances, in considering whether the person in whose name the Patta stood and who paid the Government revenue was in possession of the land; but as evidence of ownership of land, a Patta by the Government is per se of no real use. But as regards lands of which Government is the owner and which is at their absolute disposal, either because it is assessed waste land, an escheated land or land resumed : property, it is open to the Government to make a grant of such land to any person it thinks fit. In such cases, the order granting such land to such person has the effect of conveying to such person the title to the land, subject to payment of revenue, etc. issue of Patta ordinarily accompanies, if not follows, such orders, but is not absolutely necessary to complete such person's title. See 26 Mad. 268. The learned Subordinate Judge was also wrong in saying that the Plaintiff's husband did not acquire title as the order of assignment was not followed by the issue of a Patta. issue of Patta ordinarily accompanies, if not follows, such orders, but is not absolutely necessary to complete such person's title. See 26 Mad. 268. The learned Subordinate Judge was also wrong in saying that the Plaintiff's husband did not acquire title as the order of assignment was not followed by the issue of a Patta. In the result, the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge is set aside and that of the learned Munsif restored. Plaintiff's suit for declaration of title is decreed. She is entitled to recovery of possession. The appeal is allowed with costs throughout. Final Result : Allowed