JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - Plaintiff was a ryat under the Zamindar of Jeypore and was paying rent to the Zamindar, prior to the date of vesting in 1953. Admittedly, Plaintiff has not paid rent after the vesting for the years 1953-54, 54-55 and 55.56 and the arrear is to the tune of Rs. 283. 23 p. As the amount was not paid, a revenue recovery proceeding was started by the Government under the Madras Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. Plaintiff filed a suit for injunction against the State not to proceed with the proceeding. The defence was that the arrears were realisable through the Revenue Recovery Act. Both the Courts have concurrently dismissed the Plaintiff?s suit and hence the second appeal. 2. Mr. N.V. Ramdas for the Plaintiff raises two contentions, namely, (1) that the arrears do not constitute ?revenue? but are ?rents? and as such the same is not realisable through revenue recovery proceeding and (2) that the limitation under the Madras Estates Land Act was three years and by virtue of Section 8(1) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, the State cannot realise the same after the expiry of three years. Both the contentions require careful examination. 3. Section 5(b) so far as is relevant of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) runs thus: 5. (b) all rents, cases, royalties and other dues accruing in respect of lands comprised in such estate on or after the date of vesting shall be payable to the State Government and not to the outgoing intermediary and any payment made in contravention of this clause shall not be valid discharge, and all such rents, ceases, royalties and other dues shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. xx xx xx It is contended by Mr. Ramdas that the expression "rents" referred to in Section 5(b) does not cover the expression "revenue" as used in the Madras Revenue Recovery Act and as such the recovery proceeding is without jurisdiction. In section I of Madras Act II of 1864, the term "land-holder" has been defined as follows: The term "landholder" as used in this Act, shall be taken to comprise the following persons: All persons holding under a Sanad-i-Milkiyati-istimrar, all other Zamindars, Shrotriyamdars, Jagirdars, In amdars, and all persons farming the Land Revenue under the State Government. In section I of Madras Act II of 1864, the term "land-holder" has been defined as follows: The term "landholder" as used in this Act, shall be taken to comprise the following persons: All persons holding under a Sanad-i-Milkiyati-istimrar, all other Zamindars, Shrotriyamdars, Jagirdars, In amdars, and all persons farming the Land Revenue under the State Government. All Holders of land under Ryotwar settlement, or in any way subject to the payment of Revenue direct to the State Government. Thus, the definition of the expression "land-holder" is all holders of land under ryot otwar settlement, or in anyway subject to the payment of revenue direct to the State Government. Mr. Ramdas contends that since even after the abolition, rent is being paid by the Plaintiff to the State, he is not a landholder under the definition in Section 1 and as such the revenue recovery proceeding under this Act is not maintainable. This contention has no substance. 4. It would be appropriate at this stage to notice the distinction between the words "rent" and "revenue" as they are used ordinarily. If a tenant cultivates land directly under the State, the rent that he pays is called revenue. That is how under the ryotwari system, cultivators having direct relationship of landlord and tenant with the State are said to pay revenue. On the other hand, in the Zamindary System, governed by the permanent settlement, rent was being paid to the intermediaries and the intermediaries were paying revenue revenue to the State by way of Peshkash. Thus "rent" or "Revenue" as paid by the actual tiller of the soil either to the landlord or Government, as the case may be carry the same connotation. After the abolition of the estates, direct relationship of landlord and tenant has been established between the State and the ryot in the Ex-Zamindary areas. This will be apparent not only from the various provisions in the Act but also from the preamble itself which says that the Act provides for the abolition of all rights, title and interest in land of intermediaries by whatever name known, including mortgagees and lessees of such interest between the ryot and the State of Orissa. We, are, therefore, satisfied that whatever is being paid by the Plaintiff by way of rent to the State is really revenue. 5. It is, however, contended by Mr. We, are, therefore, satisfied that whatever is being paid by the Plaintiff by way of rent to the State is really revenue. 5. It is, however, contended by Mr. Ramdas that if the words "rent" and "revenue" carry the same meaning, then the Legislature could not have used the expression "rents in Sub-section 5(b) to be treated as arrears of land revenue. "Prima facie it may appear. But on a closer scrutiny of the intrinsic meaning of "rents" in the context of Section 5(b), it is clear that the word "rents" was used to include both rents and revenue in the generic sense. The expression "shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue" is a legal fiction to cover cases which in fact are not land revenue. It is appropriately applicable to the other words "cases, royalties and other dues". As rents payable for land to the State is revenue, the further provision that it is recoverable as arrears of land revenue is not strictly applicable to it but has been used by way of abundant caution as "rent" and "revenue" are differently construed in ordinary legal parlance. We, therefore, reject the contention of Mr. Ramdas that the revenue Recovery Act has no application for realisation of arrears of rent from the Plaintiff. 6. The second contention urged by Mr. Ramdas is that the period of limitation for recovery of these arrears would be three years as prescribed in the Madras Estates Land Act (Act 1 of 1908). Section 8(1) of the Act says that any person who immediately before the date of vesting of an estate in the State Government was in possession of any holding as a tenant under an Intermediary shall, on and from the date of vesting, he deemed to be a tenant of the State Government and as such person shall hold the land in the same rights and subject to the same restrictions and liabilities as he was entitled or subject to, immediately before the date of vesting. There is no dispute that immediately before the date of vesting, the Zamindar could realise arrears of rents due within a period of three years from the date of accrual of the cause of action. Mr. Ramdas contends that limitation is a liability and would be governed by the Madras Estates Land Act. There is no dispute that immediately before the date of vesting, the Zamindar could realise arrears of rents due within a period of three years from the date of accrual of the cause of action. Mr. Ramdas contends that limitation is a liability and would be governed by the Madras Estates Land Act. Rights and liabilities as envisaged in the sub-section relate to substantive rights and liabilities created under the Act. They do not cover a case of limitation. It is well known that limitation does not extinguish a right but only bars a remedy and relates to the law of procedure for recovery of dues. No period of limitation is prescribed under the Act. So limitation would be thirty years under Article 112 of the Indian Limitation Act. 7. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed with costs. B.K. Patra, J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed