JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - The writ application is a very long one. The constitutionality of various provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (Orissa Act 16 of 1960) was challenged in the petition. But at the hearing, the constitutional attack was abandoned and the whole attack was confined to only one point, namely whether the final publication of the record-of-rights in a proceeding under Chapters XI and XII of the Orissa Tenancy Act 1913 after its repeal is ultra vires. In this view of the matter, only the facts relevant to the determination of this question may be noticed. 2. On 15-12.1960 the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 (Orissa Act 3 of 1959) (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) came into force by Notification No. 53478-S-326/60/R dated 12-12-1960. In between March and June 1962 there was publication of the final record-of-rights of the disputed lands under the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913, and opposite party No. 2 was recorded as the Sikimi tenant. Though opposite parties 3 and 4 were not recorded as Sikimi tenants opposite parties 2 to 4 filed cases u/s 4 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act claiming to be raiyats, by virtue of the entry in the record-of rights. As these opposite parties claim to be raiyats by virtue of the entry in the record-of-rights the Plaintiff challenges the record-of-rights as not having been finally published in accordance with law. 3. Mr. Mohanty urges that Chapters XI and XII of the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913 and the provisions of other Chapters in so far as they are repugnant to the provisions of the Act were repealed when the Act came into force on 15-1-1960. Publication of the final record-of-rights being under the Orissa Tenancy Act, after its repeal was ultra vires and as such should be ignored and there should be a fresh publication under the Act. 4. To appreciate the aforesaid contention the scheme of the Act is to be examined. The Act is one to consolidate and amend the laws relating to survey, record-of-rights and settlement in the State of Orissa. It is in six chapters. Chapter I deals with Preliminary; Chapter II with Survey, Chapter III with Record-of-rights, Chapter IV with Settlement of Rent, Chapter V with Jurisdiction and Procedure and Chapter VI with Miscellaneous. The Act is one to consolidate and amend the laws relating to survey, record-of-rights and settlement in the State of Orissa. It is in six chapters. Chapter I deals with Preliminary; Chapter II with Survey, Chapter III with Record-of-rights, Chapter IV with Settlement of Rent, Chapter V with Jurisdiction and Procedure and Chapter VI with Miscellaneous. As the object was to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the aforesaid matters, the Orissa Tenancy Act which dealt with identical matters in Chapters XI and XII had to be repealed. This was done u/s 45 of the Act. Section 45(b) runs thus: 45. With effect from the date this Act comes into force in any area the laws mentioned hereunder shall with respect to the said area, be repealed, namely: (a)**** (b) the enactments specified in column 3 thereof. The Schedule mentions that Chapters XI and XII of and the provisions of other Chapters in the Orissa Tenancy Act in so far as they are repugnant to the provisions of this Act were repealed. Thus, with effect from 15.12.1960 survey and settlement operations under the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1911, bad no more legal sanction. Section 46(1) of the Act enacted the effect of the repeal. That sub-section is as follows: 46(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall in any way affect any proceedings pending on the date this Act comes into force under any of the enactments or laws referred to in Section 45 and all such proceedings shall be continued up to the stage of final publication of records under the said enactments or laws. Thus, proceedings pending on 15-12-1960 under Chapters XI and XII were saved and such proceedings were to be continued up to the stage of final publication of record-of-rights under the Orissa Tenancy Act. In this case publication of the record-of-rights was made under the Orissa Tenancy Act. 5. Mr. Mohanty however contends that the words "up to" occurring in Section 46(1) do not include the stage of final publication of records. Reliance is placed on Mushraf Hussain v. Agha Munawar Ali AIR 1940 Lab 7. On the facts of that particular case the learned Judge held that the word "up to" did not include the particular date. But the general observation made therein runs counter to Mr. Mohanty's contention. The pertinent observation was to the effect that. Reliance is placed on Mushraf Hussain v. Agha Munawar Ali AIR 1940 Lab 7. On the facts of that particular case the learned Judge held that the word "up to" did not include the particular date. But the general observation made therein runs counter to Mr. Mohanty's contention. The pertinent observation was to the effect that. The word 'up to' may include the 1st day or may not, and if it is in consonance with justice to interpret it, in one of the ways permissible, there can be no complaint on the other side". A similar view was taken in Metropolitan Eng. Works v. Debunner AIR 1918 Cal. 248. That was a case of contract. It was observed that the words 'up to' or 'until' a certain day in a contract may be construed as exclusive or inclusive of the day to which they are applied according to the context and to the subject-matter of the contract. The case before us does not relate to one of contract, but the aforesaid principle could also apply to statutory construction. In the context in which the words "up to" have been used in Section 46(1) the only reasonable inference is that the stage of final publication of records is also included within the saving clause. It is difficult to imagine why the Legislature would allow settlement 'Proceedings to continue under the repealed statute, excluding the stage of final 'Publication which is the culmination of the proceeding at a particular stage. We are clearly of opinion that the final publication was authorised to be done under the repealed Orissa. Tenancy Act, by Section 46(1) of the Act. 6. Final publication of the record-of-rights under the repealed Orissa Tenancy Act, thus gets legal sanction u/s 46(1) of the Act. The question of giving a direction to make a further final publication does not arise. 7. It was next contended by Mr. Mohanty that if the final publication is taken to be one under the Orissa Tenancy Act, then the Plaintiff gets no remedy under the Act. This contention has no force in view of the new Section 38 of the Act inserted by the Amending Act of 1965 (Orissa Act 9 of 1965). 7. It was next contended by Mr. Mohanty that if the final publication is taken to be one under the Orissa Tenancy Act, then the Plaintiff gets no remedy under the Act. This contention has no force in view of the new Section 38 of the Act inserted by the Amending Act of 1965 (Orissa Act 9 of 1965). Section 38, as substituted, runs thus: 38(I) All records published in the course of proceedings relating to survey, preparation of record of rights or settlement of rent and all records maintained, before the date of commencement of this Act under the provisions of any law for the time being enforce or any custom having the force of law or under orders of Government, shall be deemed to have been finally published or maintained under Sections 6-C, 12-B, 23 or 16, as the case may be, and all rents settled prior to the said date, under any such law, custom or order, as aforesaid, shall be deemed to be settled under this Act. (2) The other provisions of this Act shall, mutatis mutandis apply to all such records and rents so settled. Explanation - For the purposes of the application of Sections 6-D, 15, 25 and 42, the date of final publication shall be taken to be the date of commencement of the Orissa Survey and Settlement (Amendment) Act, 1965. (3) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing sub-sections, no proceedings shall be maintainable; (a) under Sections 6-D, 15 or 25 if the record or any entry therein or the settlement of rent bad, prior to the date of commencement of the Orissa Survey and Settlement (Amendment) Act, 1965, been; (i) subject to a revision by the Board of Revenue; or (ii) after being made, further considered by any authority in accordance with any law or under orders of Government; or (iii) subject to any decision by a Civil Court; or (b) u/s 42, if the matter had been in issue in a previously instituted suit in a Civil Court. 8. The underlined expression 'this Act' occurs at two places in Section 38(1) and at one place in Section 38(2) out of these, only the one used first in Section 38(1) and marked with asterisk refers to the Amending Act, while the other two refer to the Principal Act. 8. The underlined expression 'this Act' occurs at two places in Section 38(1) and at one place in Section 38(2) out of these, only the one used first in Section 38(1) and marked with asterisk refers to the Amending Act, while the other two refer to the Principal Act. In Section 2 of the Amending Act, the distinction was pointed out by describing the parent Act as the "Principal Act". 9. An analysis of Section 38(1) would indicate that all records published in the course of proceedings relating to preparation of record-of-rights before the commencement of the Amending Act (which came into force on 21-0-1965) which had been prepared under the Orissa Tenancy Act which was in force u/s 46(1) of the Act till the final publication of the record of rights, shall be deemed to have been finally published u/s 12-B(1) of the Act. Section 12B(1) deals with final publication of the record-of-rights under the Act. In 1962, the record of rights in respect of the disputed lands were finally published, under the Orissa Tenancy Act. Section 38(1) enjoins that such publication shall be deemed to be publication u/s 12-B(1) of the Act. Under Sub-section (1) the other provisions of the Act shall mutatis mutandis apply to such a finally published record-of-rights test there may be limitation in pursuing the remedies prescribed under the Act, the Explanation appended to Sub-section (2) clarified the position that for the purpose of application of Section 15 the date of final publication shall be taken to be the date of commencement of the Amending Act. By virtue of this Explanation, the record of rights finally published in 1962 would be deemed to have been finally published on 21-5-1965. 10. Section 15 of the Act deals with revision by the Board of Revenue. It rune thus: 15. The Board of Revenue may in any case direct (a) of its own motion the revision of any record-of-rights, or any portion of a record-of-rights at any time after the date of final publication u/s 12-B, but not so as to affect any order passed by a Civil Court. It rune thus: 15. The Board of Revenue may in any case direct (a) of its own motion the revision of any record-of-rights, or any portion of a record-of-rights at any time after the date of final publication u/s 12-B, but not so as to affect any order passed by a Civil Court. (b) on application, made within two years from the date of final publication u/s 12- B, the revision of any record-of-rights, or any portion thereof whether within the said period of two years or thereafter, but not so as to affect any order passed by a Civil Court u/s 42. Provided that no such direction shall be made until reasonable opportunity has been given to the parties concerned to appear and be heard in the matter. Thus the Plaintiff was not without remedy. The contention that the repeal of the Orissa Tenancy Act deprives the Plaintiff of an opportunity to challenge the finally published record-of-rights is not sound. The Plaintiff can pursue the remedies as provided in Section 15 and other previous of the Act. 11. Section 38(3) enumerates the cases where under no proceeding shall be maintainable notwithstanding anything said in Sub-sections (1) and (2). Thus, the scheme of the Act is not to take away the remedies available to the Plaintiff under the Orissa Tenancy Act. The Act preserves all the previous rights and remedies and makes appropriate provisions. 12. On the aforesaid analysis, our conclusions may be summed up as follows: (i) Though the Orissa Tenancy Act was repealed, Section 46(1) of the Act legalises the final publication of the record-of-rights under the Orissa Tenancy Act. Upto that stage the old law relating to preparation of record-of-rights was kept alive. (ii) Record-of-rights prepared prior to the Amending Act was, by legal fiction, deemed to have been published on the date the Amending Act came into force. (iii) By repeal of the Orissa Tenancy Act the remedies prescribed thereunder to challenge the finally published record-of-rights were no longer available, but corresponding remedies were provided in the Act. The validity of the record-of-rights cannot, therefore, be challenged on only legal grounds. 13. (iii) By repeal of the Orissa Tenancy Act the remedies prescribed thereunder to challenge the finally published record-of-rights were no longer available, but corresponding remedies were provided in the Act. The validity of the record-of-rights cannot, therefore, be challenged on only legal grounds. 13. The record-of-rights prepared in 1962 was assailed in order to get over the difficulty created by Section 4(1)(i) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act which is as follows: 4(1) the following persons shall be deemed to be raiyats for the purposes of this Act in respect of the lands held by them, namely: **** (i) Subject to the provisions of Sub-sections (5) to (8) persons who are immediately before the commencement of this Act in personal cultivation of any land and recorded as sub-tenants or under raiyats in respect of such land in the record-of-rights under any law in force in any part of the State Opposite party No. 2 had been recorded as Sikimi tenant in the finally published record-of-rights of the year 1962. We express no opinion as to the power of the Settlement officer to recognise such rights in opposite party No. 2. But we have no doubt that the finally published record-of-rights in 1962 cannot be questioned as being contrary to law merely because it was published under the Orissa Tenancy Act. The Plaintiff can pursue his remedies under the Act before the appropriate forums, if the same have not been barred by limitation. 14. The writ application has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. R.N. Misra, J. 15. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed