JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - The Petitioner is the Raja of Jeypore in the district of Koraput. The Jeypore Estate was abolished under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951, and vested in the State of Orissa on 29-12-1932 The subject-matter of this writ application constitutes an area of Rs. 32.50 acres having coffee, cardamom, casuarina etc. plantations. The Petitioner asserted that as he was in Khas possession of these lands on the date of vesting and used them for agricultural and horticultural purposes, he was entitled to retain possession of the same and hold them as a raiyat under the State Government, subject to payment of such fair and equitable rent as may be determined by the Collector in the prescribed manner. 2. The Estate Abolition Collector (Tahsildar of Jeypore) held that the Petitioner was in Khas possession on the date of vesting. In appeal, the Additional District Magistrate held that though the Petitioner was in Khas possession, he was not entitled to the benefit of Section 7(1)(a) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act as the disputed lands were part of the reserved forests and were under the control and management, of the Collector of Koraput. Being aggrieved by this order this writ application has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 3. The learned Standing Counsel does not dispute that the concurrent findings of the authorities below are in favour of the Petitioner that he was in Khas possession of these plantations inside the reserved forests on the date of vesting. The point for consideration is whether on account of the fact that the disputed lands constituted a part of the reserved forests as declared u/s 32 of the Madras Forests Act, 1882, the Petitioner would be entitled to the benefits of Section 7(1)(a) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. 4. It would be appropriate at, this stage to examine the scheme of the relevant provisions of the Estates Abolition Act. Section 2(j) defines "Khas possession" thus: 2 (j) 'Khas possession' used with reference to the possession of an Intermediary of any land used for agricultural or horticultural purposes, means the possession of such Intermediary by cultivating such land or carrying on horticultural operations thereon himself with his own stock or by his own servants or by hired labour or with hired stock. Section 5 deals with the consequences of vesting of an estate in the State. Sub-section (a) thereof says that subject to the provisions of that Chapter (Chapter II) the entire estate including....forests....shall vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances and such Intermediary shall cease to nave any interest in such estate other than the interests expressly saved by or under the provisions of the Act. It will thus be apparent from Section 5(a) that if there is no express saving; provision in the Act, then all forests belonging to the Intermediary on the date of vesting must vest absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances. Section 7(1)(a) lays down: 7(1) On and from the date of vesting (a) All lands used for agricultural or horticultural purposes which were in Khas possession of an Intermediary on the date of such vesting. shall...be deemed to be settled by the State Government with such Intermediary and with an the shareholders owning the estate and such Intermediary with an the shareholders shall be entitled to retain possession thereof and hold them as raiyats under the State Government having occupancy rights in respect of such lands subject to the payment, of such fair and equitable rent as may be determined by the Collector in the prescribed manner. 5. There can hardly be any controversy that if the aforesaid lands had not been declared as reserved forests u/s 32 of the Madras Forest Act, the claim of the Petitioner that he should be deemed to be the occupancy raiyat in respect of the disputed lands cannot be resisted. This arises on a plain reading of the section. In other word" if the Intermediary had chosen, prior to the date of vesting, to have any plantations or gardens, or to have agricultural or horticultural operations carried on, in any land inside any forest and is found to be in Khas possession of such land on the date of "vesting" his claim to be recognised as an occupancy raiyat in respect thereof must be accepted, despite the fact that it constituted an integral part of the forest itself. 6. The only question for consideration, therefore, is whether the Petitioner can be deprived of this privilege merely because the forest was declared to be a reserved forest by a notification issued u/s 32 of the Madras Forest Act. 6. The only question for consideration, therefore, is whether the Petitioner can be deprived of this privilege merely because the forest was declared to be a reserved forest by a notification issued u/s 32 of the Madras Forest Act. A bare perusal of Section 32 would have convinced the Additional District Magistrate that by the notification the proprietor was not deprived of his rights of ownership in the forest; by such notification only the control and management was transferred to the Collector. The relevant portion of this section runs thus: 32. The owner of any land or, if there be more than one owner thereof, the owners of shares therein, whether divided or not, amounting in the aggregate to at least two-thirds thereof may, with It view to the formation or conservation of forests then on, represent in writing to the Collector their desire. (a) that such land be managed on their behalf by the District Forest Officer as a reserved forest on such terms as may be agreed upon. The expression printed in italics furnishes the key that the transfer of management and control was for preservation and formation of the forest. By the notification the proprietor at no time was deprived of his ownership in the reserved forest. If the proprietor continued to be the owner and in exercise of his 'rights, title and interest possessed any portion thereof, for agricultural or horticultural purposes, then his claim plainly comes within the ambit of Section 7(1)(a) of the Estates Abolition Act. There was no justification for the learned Additional District Magistrate to take a different view. 7. On the aforesaid analysis, we are clearly of opinion that the Petitioner shall be deemed to be the occupancy raiyat in respect of the disputed area on the concurrent finding that he was in Khas possession thereof. 8. In the result, the impugned order is quashed and the writ application is allowed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hundred only). R.N. Misra, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Allowed