JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - The Petitioner is recorded as a sikimi tenant under opposite party No. 1 in respect of 1.39 acres of land in sikimi Khatas Nos. 11 and 12 under Debottar Khata No. 6 of mouza Khajalbodha, in Baramba P.S. in the district of Cuttack. The rent, was payable in kind. Opposite party No. 1 obtained a decree on 21-5-1965 for eviction of the Petitioner for non-payment of rent in Rent Suit No. 7 of 1961-62. Execution was levied on 11-12-1965 for recovery of possession in Execution Case No. 1 of 1965-66. On 1-10-1965, the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1950, (Orissa Act No. 16 of 1960-hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) excluding Chapters III and IV came into force. The Petitioner therefore took an objection in the Execution Case that the decree was not executable in view of Sections 3 and 8(1) of the Act. This objection was over-ruled by the executing Court and the first appellate authority on 6-5-1966 and 29-12-1967 respectively. Against the appellate order of the Additional District Magistrate over-ruling the objection in Revenue Appeal No. 2 of 1966, this writ application has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 2. Mr. Das contends that the Petitioner is a raiyat u/s 4(1)(a) of the Act and as such, is not evictable by virtue of the provisions in Sections 3 and a(1) of the Act despite the decree for eviction passed against him on 21-5-1965. This necessitates an examination of the aforesaid provisions. 3. Sessions 3, 4(1) and a(1) of the Act may be extracted: 3. Save as otherwise provided the provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law, custom or usage or agreement, decree or order of Court. 4(1) The following persons shall be deemed to be raiyats for the purposes of this Act in respect of lands held by them, namely: (a) persons holding lands immediately before the commencement of this Act or at any time thereafter with rights of occupancy under or within the meaning of any law for the time being in force. a(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act and notwithstanding any contract, custom or usage or decree or order of any Court, a raiyat shall be liable to eviction only if he. a(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act and notwithstanding any contract, custom or usage or decree or order of any Court, a raiyat shall be liable to eviction only if he. (a) has used the land comprised in a holding in a manner which renders it unfit for the purpose of agriculture; or (b) has leased out the land in contravention of the provisions of Section 6 or has failed to cultivate the land personally; or (c) has used the land for any purpose other than agriculture. Explanation:-The construction of a house for the residence of the raiyat and his family members, together with all necessary outheuses, shall be for agricultural purposes. 4. If the Petitioner is a raiyat within the ambit of Section 4(1)(0), then certainly he is not liable for eviction by virtue of the provisions of Sections 3 and 8(1) despite the impugned decree for eviction. In other words, though opposite party No. 1 got a decree against the Petitioner for non-payment of rent such a decree would be inexecutable after the coming into force of Chapter II of the Act if the Petitioner is a raiyat. It is neither party's case that eviction is Bought against the Petitioner under any of the Clauses (a) to (c) of Section a(1). 5. The Bole question for consideration, therefore, is whether the Petitioner holds the disputed lands immediately before the commencement of this Act with rights of occupancy under or within the meaning of any law for the time being in force. 6. This leads to an examination of the law as prevailing in the ex-State of Baramba at the date of commencement of the Act. Sri R.K. Ramadhyani J.C.S., was appointed Officer on Special Duty to report on the Land Tenures and the Revenue Systems in the Orissa and Chhattisgarh States. In volume III, at page 25, the revenue history and settlements of the ex-State of Baramba have been dealt with. In paragraph 11, at page 27, the following passage occurs: There is no revenue law in the State of any kind. The Settlement Officer of 1903 made out a list of rights and liabilities of ryots and this has been reproduced in the settlement report of 1924-25. The rights and liabilities of Sikimi tenants have been described in the final report of the survey and settlement operations of the feudatory State of Baramba in 1924-25. The Settlement Officer of 1903 made out a list of rights and liabilities of ryots and this has been reproduced in the settlement report of 1924-25. The rights and liabilities of Sikimi tenants have been described in the final report of the survey and settlement operations of the feudatory State of Baramba in 1924-25. The relevant passage may be extracted: There are tenants in respect of the Debottar lands as well as under the Lakhrajdars, Khanjadars and Jagirdars and raiyats from time immemorial. They are known as Sikimi tenants. These Sikimi tenants under the Debottar lands as well as under the Lakhrajdars, Khanjadars, Jagirdars and Raiyats who have heritable rights in their tenures, have occupancy rights over the lands in their cultivating possession because they enjoy the lands from generation to generation and that the tenure homers acquiesce in the fact that they cannot oust their Sikimi tenants. This clearly indicates that they have permanent rights in their tenancies. In other words, it is safe to say that they have occupancy rights over their lands. This is in conformity with the custom in vogue in this State as well as in the neighbouring States. The general trend of law also supports this view. Hence Sikimi tenants are in no way inferior to the State settled raiyats in the village. But the case of the Sikimi tenants under the service Jagirdars is quite different. As service jagir-holders they have no permanent right over their tenancies and their tenancies will cease as soon as they discontinue their service any Sikimi tenant holding lands under them cannot claim any right over such lands is to be construed from year to year, and so it is waste of time and labour to recognise such temporary possession. It has now been strictly forbidden that no class of tenant can sublet his land without State sanction. So, neither the tenure-holders nor the raiyats (vide copy of notice issued in 1914) can create any encumbrances over their tenancies in present times. But it will be inexpedient and unfair not to recognise the old Sikimi tenants who have held the lands from generation to generation and the local custom has conferred occupancy right on them. So, with due regard to ancient custom and to remove hardship, the old Sikimi tenants have been recognised as having occupancy rights over their lands. But it will be inexpedient and unfair not to recognise the old Sikimi tenants who have held the lands from generation to generation and the local custom has conferred occupancy right on them. So, with due regard to ancient custom and to remove hardship, the old Sikimi tenants have been recognised as having occupancy rights over their lands. These Sikimi tenants mostly pay produce rent such as a sanja (a fixed quantity of paddy) or Dhulibhag (half the produce and by-products). There are some who pay rent in cash and some in cash and in kind both. In the case of the Sanja tenants the quantity of paddy payable in respect of each class of land has been fixed. The aforesaid passage gives a clear picture of the rightful and liabilities of Sikimi tenants as prevalent in the ex-State of Baramba. They had occupancy rights over their lands and could not be ousted by the tenure-holders if they are tenants of Debottar lands or were so under Lakharjdars, Khanjadars, Jagirdars and raiyats. They had permanent rights in their tenures. Their position was comparable with that of Sikimi tenants under service tenure-holders which was precarious in character. Sikimi tenants under service tenure-holders were evictable. If the aforesaid passage is taken to be the law as prevalent in the ex-feudatory State of Baramba, then clearly the Petitioner is a raiyat u/s 4(1)(a) of the Act. 7. Mr. Panigrahi on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 however contends that the Settlement Report is not "law for the time being in force" within the meaning of Section 4(1)(a). The contention is without substance. Prior to the merger of Baramba State on 1-1-1948, its Ruler had full internal sovereignty. He combined in himself the highest legislative, executive and judicial functions. In some of the States there were no codified laws corresponding to statutory law. The Ruler used to give effect to the laws not by passing any legislation but by merely recognising them in the rules and settlement reports. As would appear from Mr. Ramadhyani's Report, the rights and responsibilities of Sikimi tenants were recognised as early as 1903 and were re-produced in the settlement Report of 1924-25. There can therefore be no doubt that the rights and liabilities referred to in the Settlement Report clearly constituted the law of Baramba State. As would appear from Mr. Ramadhyani's Report, the rights and responsibilities of Sikimi tenants were recognised as early as 1903 and were re-produced in the settlement Report of 1924-25. There can therefore be no doubt that the rights and liabilities referred to in the Settlement Report clearly constituted the law of Baramba State. Even if they are not substantive codified laws, these rights and liabilities were based on custom and usage and such customary laws have been given recognition under the Administration of Orissa States Order, 1948. Paragraph 4(b) of the said Order lays down: 4(b) As respects these matters which are not covered by enactments applied to the Orissa States under Sub-paragraph (a), all laws in force in any of the Orissa States prior to the commencement of this Order, whether substantive or procedural and whether based on custom or usage or statutes, shall continue to remain in force until altered or amended by an order under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act (XLVII) of 1947). It is thus clear that the rights and liabilities based on custom and usage continued to remain in force until altered or amended. It is no party's case that such laws, based on custom or usage, have since been altered or amended. The rights of Sanja tenants, as given in the Final Settlement Report relating to Baramba State constitute the law of the State or the customary law of the State having the force of law, by virtue of the aforesaid Order. The Petitioner is, therefore 80 raiyat within the meaning of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. 8. Mr. Panigrahi contended that the pattas (Annexures 1 and 1/1) do not show that the Petitioner had any occupancy right. The pattas show that the Petitioner was a Sikimi tenant. The status of a Sikimi tenant has been mentioned in the Settlement Report. Sikimi tenants in Baramba State having occupancy right were to pay rent either 10 kind or both in cash and kind. The pattas must be read with the context of the Settlement Report in order to determine the status of the Sikimi tenants. 9. It was next contended that after the decree for eviction was passed, the Petitioner did not retain his character as an occupancy tenant, though he might have continued as a mere tenant. This contention has also no force. 9. It was next contended that after the decree for eviction was passed, the Petitioner did not retain his character as an occupancy tenant, though he might have continued as a mere tenant. This contention has also no force. As was observed in Subbayya v. Mustafa AIR 1923 P.C. 175 , the mere passing of a declaratory decree does not affect the character and quality of post tension. The observation was made in connection with a case of adverse possession. In Sri Sri Damodar Jew Thakur v. Hemanarayan Misra 35 C.L.T. 133, the identical principle was made applicable to a decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession and the conflict of authorities on the point was resolved. It was held therein that until actual possession is taken the nature of possession is not altered. In the present case before the decree was put into execution Chapter II of the Act came into force. By the impugned decree the character and quality of possession of the Petitioner in respect of the disputed land did not after in other words, the Petitioner contented to be an occupancy tenant. 10. On the aforesaid analysis, we are clearly of opinion that the Petitioner held the disputed lands immediately before the commencement of the Act with right of occupancy under a valid law in force in the ex-State of Baramba, which was kept alive after its merger, by paragraph 4 of the Administration of Orissa. States Order 1948. The impugned orders are, therefore, liable to be quashed. We accordingly issue a writ of certiorari quashing the aforesaid orders. The writ application is allowed but in the circumstances both parties will bear their own Costs. S.K. Ray, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Allowed