JUDGMENT : Ray, J. - This is an appeal by the unsuccessful: Plaintiff against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing her suit. 2. The suit-land comprising an area of A-4-67, under survey No. 682 bearing patta No. 224 is situate in village Nimina in the ex estate of Khallikote. In all the three settlement operations preceding the institution of the suit, that is, of the, years 1931, 1934 and 1953, it has been consistently recorded as Poramboke Borida Bandha, and originally belonged to the ex-Zamindar of Khallikote, Athgarh and Biridi. 3. The Plaintiff's case is that the suit-land though recorded as a tank-Poramboke was never used as such, that is, as a reservoir of water for communal use, nor was it ever used as water source of irrigation for the surrounding lands. If, however, at any time in the past, it served as a water source of irrigation for the village community, it has now ceased to be so, and therefore, it has lost its character as a tank. Her case is that her husband was in cultivating possession of the suit-land for the last forty years for which he was issued a Jeroyati patta No. 224 in the year 1941 and was paying the rent to the landlord in kind till. the issuance of the patta, after which the rent was paid, in cash till the year 1953 when the estate of Khallikote was abolished by virtue of the provisions on the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. Thereafter, the Anchal authorities used to collect the same rent as was due to the landlord upto the year 1956. Before vesting of the estate in Government, the Plaintiff's husband filed an application before the District Collector, Ganjam, on 14-7-1952 purporting to be one u/s 20-A of the Madras Estates Land Act (I of 1908) for a declaration that the suit-land is no longer required for any of the purpose referred to in Sub-clause (a) of Clause (16) of Section a thereof and that the same may be converted into ryoti-land.., After filing of this application (Ext. B), objections were invited in a gazette notification dated 1-8-1952 (Ext. C). Pursuant to such notification some members of the public filed objections, marked as Exts. I, J, K and L in the case. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chatrapur, made, enquiry into the matter and submitted his report dated 11-8-1954. B), objections were invited in a gazette notification dated 1-8-1952 (Ext. C). Pursuant to such notification some members of the public filed objections, marked as Exts. I, J, K and L in the case. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chatrapur, made, enquiry into the matter and submitted his report dated 11-8-1954. He found that the suit-land is a storage-tank and serves as a source of irrigation. He accordingly held that the prayer for, conversion should not be allowed. This matter was taken before the Additional District Collector, Ganjam, who by his order dated 17-8-1954 accepted the report of the R.D.O. and rejected the Plaintiff's prayer for conversion, and as the Plaintiff's husband was then in possession, he further directed that appropriate steps be taken for his eviction. Before this order was passed, the husband of the Plaintiff died. Though the exact date of his death has not been proved in the case, from the statement made by the Plaintiff in regard thereto, he appears to have died sometime before the abolition of Khallikote estate took place on 1-6-1953. In course of hearing of the appeal, the Plaintiff' has filed an affidavit giving exact date of death .of her husband to he 6-7-1953 and there being no counter, that date is taken as correct for the purpose of this appeal. 5. In consequence of the direction of the Additional District Collector, encroachment proceedings were started by the R.D. O, Chatrapur under Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act and the Plaintiff was directed to vacate. This order was confirmed by the District Collector and also by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Southern Division, Berhampur on 27-12-1958 and it is after this, the Plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 53/59 on 15-9-1959 which later was withdrawn with permission of the Court to file a fresh suit. Accordingly the present suit was filed on 28-1-1960 for two reliefs, viz, (a) for a declaration that the entry in the final record-of-rights, published on 4-12-1953, to the effect that the suit-land is tank. Paramboke is incorrect and to rectify the same; and (b) for a declaration that the order of eviction passed in the land encroachment proceeding, by the R.D.O0., which was ultimately confirmed on 27-12-1958 by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Southern Division, in R.P. No. 16/58, is illegal and not binding by the Plaintiff. 6. Paramboke is incorrect and to rectify the same; and (b) for a declaration that the order of eviction passed in the land encroachment proceeding, by the R.D.O0., which was ultimately confirmed on 27-12-1958 by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Southern Division, in R.P. No. 16/58, is illegal and not binding by the Plaintiff. 6. It is admitted, and also it appears from the records in the case, that despite the orders of eviction, the Plaintiff still continues to be in possession of the suit-land, as there was some order of injunction against the State, restraining them from evicting the plain tiff in pursuance of the orders-passed in the land encroachment proceeding during the pendency of the litigation. 7. The defence of the State is that the suit-land is a tank-Paramboke which has been in existence since a very long time and recorded as such in three successive settlement record-of-rights of the years 1931, 1934 and 11:) 53, and it serves as a reservoir of water for irrigating large tracts of land. Though it belonged to the ex-estate of Khallikote, the landlord had no right to grant any ryoti-patta in respect of the same under the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act, nor could such grant affect, in any manner, the character of the suit-land as a tank serving storage and irrigation purposes, nor could the grant create any ryoti-right in favour of the grantee so as to oust the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act to institute any proceedings thereunder. Further, the fact of the Plaintiff's husband having made an application u/s 20-A of the Madras Estates Land Act, confirms that the applicant was aware of the legal position that no ryoti-right could be conferred or acquired in respect of the suit-land, unless and until 'declaration and conversion' as contemplated u/s 20-A were made by the Collector. It was further contended that after abolition of the estate of Khallikote on 1-6-1953 the suit-land vested in the State from all encumbrances as a consequence of abolition notification. The suit-land therefore became the property of Government and is covered by Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, and as such the encroachment proceedings are valid and binding against the Plaintiff. 8. The suit-land therefore became the property of Government and is covered by Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, and as such the encroachment proceedings are valid and binding against the Plaintiff. 8. The trial Court did not believe the Plaintiff's case that her husband was possessing the suit-land from 1919 till 1941, and the said finding has been accepted by the lower appellate Court. While holding that the suit-land was never used as a water-reservoir, nor was it a source of irrigation for the villagers, and that the Anchal Officer having accepted rent from the Plaintiff for the suit-land had acknowledged the Plaintiff's title thereto, he dismissed the Plaintiff's suit on the sole ground that the suit-land was recorded as tank-Paramboke in the record-of-rights (Ext. G/1.), and there having been no conversion of the same-into ryoti-land by the Collector, the landlord had no right to grant patta in respect of the same. He accordingly held that there was no bar to enforcing the provisions of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act (Act 15 of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the Plaintiff. The trial Court accordingly dismissed the suit. 9. The lower appellate Court, however, found that water used to be stored in the suit-tank, and the settlement entry not having been rebutted has to be accepted as correct. He accordingly held that the suit-tank a Paramboke land, the landlord had no right to settle the same with the Plaintiff's husband, and that the collection of rent by the Anchal authority as per Ext. 2 series does not amount to acknowledge of the Plaintiff as a tenant of the suit-land. He accordingly affirmed the decision of the trial Court, though he reversed certain of his findings. 10. Learned Counsel for the Appellant gives up his prayer for the first relief, that is, for a declaration that the entry in the record-of-rights is incorrect, and accordingly the dismissal of the suit in regard to this, must be confirmed. He accordingly affirmed the decision of the trial Court, though he reversed certain of his findings. 10. Learned Counsel for the Appellant gives up his prayer for the first relief, that is, for a declaration that the entry in the record-of-rights is incorrect, and accordingly the dismissal of the suit in regard to this, must be confirmed. His only point is that assuming the settlement entry is correct, the suit-land not being a communal-Paramboke, cannot be excluded from the definition of "ryoti land" u/s 3(16)(a) of the Madras Estates Land Act, and therefore, the Plaintiff's husband became a ryoti by reason of his Jeroyati patta No. 224 and the said right has been transmitted to her upon her husband's death and accordingly the eviction proceedings cannot be said to be valid. 11. As stated before, the suit-land has been recorded as a tank-Paramboke in three successive settlements. Further, the lower appellate Court finds that it is used as a storage and serves as a source of irrigation, but this finding has been assailed on the ground that it was based on a misconception of evidence, by the final Court of fact. This criticism is based upon only one sentence in paragraph 9 of the lower appellate Court's judgment which runs as follows: "The trend of evidence of other d. ws. is also to the same effect." By this, the learned lower appellate Court meant that like d.w.5 who stated that water from Narasingha Bandha flows down to the suit-tank and the water thus stored there is used for irrigation of his own land and the lands of other tenants, the other d. ws. also depose to the same effect. I was taken through the evidence of all the d.ws. in extenso, but it cannot be said that the evidence of all the d.ws. except d.w.5 is completely silent on the question of whether the suit-land serves as an irrigation source and whether water is stored there for irrigating the lands of surrounding tenants. There may be valid reasons for accepting the evidence of d. ws. as the lower appellate Court has done or for discarding the same as the trial Court has done. except d.w.5 is completely silent on the question of whether the suit-land serves as an irrigation source and whether water is stored there for irrigating the lands of surrounding tenants. There may be valid reasons for accepting the evidence of d. ws. as the lower appellate Court has done or for discarding the same as the trial Court has done. This is not a case of complete absence of evidence on the question whether the suit-tank is used as an irrigation source for irrigating surrounding lands as found by the lower appellate Court, and I do not find any legal justification for reversing that finding of the lower appellate Court which has satisfied all the external conditions of a legal finding. Therefore, this finding coupled with the settlement entry would lead to the conclusion that the suit-land forming the bed of a tank is commonly used as a source of irrigation by the villagers for irrigating their lands all around, and thus can be said to have been impliedly set apart for the common use of the villagers. Hence even accepting the construction put upon Section 3(16)(a) of the Madras Estates Land Act. it must be held that the suit-land is not ryoti-land and cannot be subject-matter of a grant of ryotwari-patta. 12. The right of a landlord in respect of all irrigation tanks, whether communal or not, is a very restricted one, though he is a proprietor of the same, and he is prohibited from changing or destroying the nature and character of the land, and is under a duty to preserve it as such and to repair and maintain it so that the irrigation and storage purposes may be served. This is largely supported by the decisions reported in Ramaswamy Goundar and Another Vs. Ramaswami Goundar and Others cited by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. In view of the finding that the suit-land is a Paramboke-land and is Bet apart for the common use of the villagers, the Plaintiff's husband could not acquire any right-title or interest thereto by virtue of the patta granted to him by the landlord in the year 1941. 13. It was argued that all Paramboke lands are not communal lands. In the restricted sense of the term, it is used to refer to lands set apart for public purposes, such as village sites, cattle-stands, threshing floors and the like. 13. It was argued that all Paramboke lands are not communal lands. In the restricted sense of the term, it is used to refer to lands set apart for public purposes, such as village sites, cattle-stands, threshing floors and the like. Apart from these species of Paramboke lands, it also covers all excluded places or outside tracts which do not yield any Government revenue. Thus, the word 'Paramboke' is loosely used in many senses. On the basis of this, it is argued that the mere description of the suit-land as 'Paramboke' without proof of the same being set apart for the common use of the villagers would not exclude it from the definition of ryoti-land provided in Section 3(16) of the Madras Estates Land Act, and as such the landlord would retain his power to settle it with a tenant who can thus acquire ryoti interest in the same and this category of land is not covered by the definition of 'Government property' contained in the Act. The question has, therefore, to be examined on the hypothesis that the suit-land does not belong to the class of Parambokes set apart for communal use and purpose. Section 3(16) of the Madras Estates Land Act runs as follows: (a) Ryoti lands mean cultivable lands in an estate, except private lands, beds and bunds of tanks and of supply, drainage, surplus or irrigation channels; (b) threshing floor, cattle-stands, village sites and other lands set apart for the common use of the villagers. Other portions of the Sub-section are omitted as not material for the purpose of this case. On a comparison of the language used in Sub-clauses (a) and (b), it would appear that the words "set apart for the common use of the villagers" do not occur in sub Clause (a) and, thus it is quite clear that the beds and bunds of tanks as such whether set apart for common use of villagers or not, are excluded from the category of ryoti-land. The question whether threshing-floor, cattle-stand and village sites should be specifically set apart for common use of the villagers in order that they may be excluded from the classification of ryoti-land is a moot question which it is not necessary to decide as the same is not called for. 14. The question whether threshing-floor, cattle-stand and village sites should be specifically set apart for common use of the villagers in order that they may be excluded from the classification of ryoti-land is a moot question which it is not necessary to decide as the same is not called for. 14. It was next argued that cesession of the original use and purpose of an irrigation-tank automatically releases it from the exception to ryoti-land to revest in the landlord the right to induct tenants in respect of the same. Sections 20, 20-A, and 21 of the Madras Estates Land Act are the group of sections which provide adequate answer to this contention. Section 20 empowers the Collector to decide a question as to whether any land is or is not of the description mentioned in Section 3(16)(a) and such decision is final and conclusive subject to the result of a civil suit. Section 20-A provides that the District Collector while deciding the question referred to in Section 20 may declare that the original purpose of an irrigation tank has ceased and thus, at his discretion, either divert it for any other specified communal purpose or direct its reconversion into ryot-wari land. Section 20(2) specifically provides that without the order of the District Collector the Paramboke-tank cannot be treated as raiyati-land even though it is not required for its original purpose. In view of this specific statutory provision, this contention must fail. None of the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the Appellant lends any support to this contention, as indeed, such support from any ruling is impossible to find in view of the provision laid down in Section 20. Section 21 provides that any person occupying any such land before the District Collector has directed its conversion into ryoti.land is liable to be evicted summarily under the provisions of the Madras Land Encroachment Act. This being the correct legal position, as appears to me, and the application of the Plaintiff's husband to the District Collector for conversion of the land having been disallowed, the Plaintiff claiming through her husband, becomes liable to summary eviction. This being the correct legal position, as appears to me, and the application of the Plaintiff's husband to the District Collector for conversion of the land having been disallowed, the Plaintiff claiming through her husband, becomes liable to summary eviction. The Madras Land Encroachment Act referred to in Section 21 of the Madras Estates Land Act having been repealed by the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, the Plaintiff incurs the liability for eviction by reason of Section 17(2) of the said Act, read with Section 21 of the Madras Estates Land Act. 15. Even otherwise, the suit-land is covered by the definition "Property of Government" as contained in Section 2(a) of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act which is as follows: 2. Property of Government: Subject to the provision of any law for the time being in force the following classes of lands are hereby declared to be the property of Government for the purposes of this Act, namely, (b) All public roads, streets, lanes, and pathis, the bridges, ditches...the bed of the water mark, and of rivers, streams, nalas, lakes and tanks and an canals and water-courses and all standing and flowing water .... Then follows the class of property which is excluded from the said definition as obviously and admittedly they do not fall within its ambit. On the face of it, this definition cogers the suit-land, it being the bed of a tank, and as such, the proceedings initiated under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act are valid and binding on the Plaintiff. 16. The enumeration of property of Government in Section 2 of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act is not exhaustive, and it attracts and includes properties other than those classified here. This is quite manifest from the opening words of Section 2 which are: "Subject to the provisions of any law for the time being in force". This qualifying clause may either abridge or enlarge the category of Government property contained in Clause (a) by the provisions of other laws in force. Thus, if the suit- land can become property of Government by any other law for the time being in force, then the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act are also attracted thereto, and the eviction proceedings can validly lie. In the present case, the estate of Khallikote in which the suit-land is situate, was abolished on 1-6-1953. Thus, if the suit- land can become property of Government by any other law for the time being in force, then the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act are also attracted thereto, and the eviction proceedings can validly lie. In the present case, the estate of Khallikote in which the suit-land is situate, was abolished on 1-6-1953. Section 5 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act provides that all communal lands and Parambokes shall vest absolutely in Government free from all encumbrances, subject to the other provisions of Chapter II of that Act. Other provisions in the said Act, viz., Sections 6, 7 and 8 save certain rights of the ex-intermediary and preserve the tenure of tenants who are holding lands as tenants under the intermediary on the date of vesting. Therefore, the land which vests absolutely in the State Government to which subsequent provision of Chapter II of the Abolition Act are inapplicable, becomes the property of the Government in respect of which the provisions of the Prevention of Land Encroachment Act are applicable. It has already been found that the suit-land being not a ryoti-land within the meaning of Section 3(16) of the Madras Estates Land Act, no tenancy right can be created in respect thereof by the landlord either by letting, grant or settlement. In that view of the law, the Plaintiff's husband cannot be said to have acquired any tenure in respect of the suit-land by virtue of the Jeryati-patta granted to him in the year 1941. Whatever right he might have against the landlord, was a contractual right entitling him to hold the land against the landlord subject to the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act, and such contractual rights if any, have been wiped out by the operation of Section 5-A of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. Thus, in any view of the matter, the suit-land is a property of the "Government and is fully governed by the provisions of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1953, and as such it cannot be said that the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chatrapur, or the Additional District Collector, Chatrapur, or the Revenue Divisional Commissioner Southern Division, Berhampur, were not binding on the Plaintiff. In the result, all the contentions of the Plaintiff-Appellant having been negatived, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Final Result : Dismissed