JUDGMENT : S.K. Ray, J. - The Plaintiff-Appellant filed his suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit land by evicting the Defendants therefrom. The suit land is 0.07 decimals in extent and appertains to plot No. 273 in holding No. 226 of village Birakishorepur. This plot was recorded as plot No. 307 in the latest settlement. His case is that he purchased this land from one Laxmi Bewa on 12-12-1944. This land adjoins to the east of the lands of the Defendants. It is alleged by the Plaintiff that the Defendants forcibly amalgamated it with their land on 23-5-1965. The suit land admittedly appertains to an estate and the Plaintiff is an intermediary in respect thereof. This estate has been vested in 1963 in the State of Orissa in pursuance of the general notification of vesting issued by the Government on 27-4-1963. Subsequent to the vesting the Plaintiff has got the rent schedule in his name. This schedule is Ex. 3 and bears the date 13-11-1967. It is said that this schedule was drawn up in his favour in Land Settlement Case No. 1102/66. He also produced certain rent receipts which are Exts 2 series appertaining to year 1964-1965. These rent receipts bear the stamp "without prejudice". 2. The original title of the Plaintiff is not denied by the Defendants. Their contention is that they have been in possession of this land for more than 30 years and accordingly, they acquired title to it by adverse possession. In proof of their case of possession they have proved a notice issued to their father on behalf of the Plaintiff for relinquishing possession of the suit land. This notice was proved as Ex. A dated 13-7-1951. Apart from this documentary evidence the Defendants have also adduced oral evidence in support of their case of possession. 3. The trial Court held that the oral evidence of possession adduced by the parties are not satisfactory. Relying upon right schedule Ex. 3 and rent receipts Ex. 2 series he came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff was in possession of the suit land within 12 years of the suit, which was filed on 25-81965. He also found that the Defendants have failed to establish the case of adverse possession. 4. Relying upon right schedule Ex. 3 and rent receipts Ex. 2 series he came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff was in possession of the suit land within 12 years of the suit, which was filed on 25-81965. He also found that the Defendants have failed to establish the case of adverse possession. 4. The lower appellate Court has, however, come to the conclusion disagreeing with the trial Court that the Defendants Appellants have successfully established their actual physical possession over the suit land since the year 1951?. In reaching this conclusion he has relied upon Ex. A, the Lawyer?s notice issued on behalf of the Plaintiff to the father of Defendants on 13-7-1951 and the oral evidence of possession on record. He has discarded Ex. 3 on the ground that it is only a paper transaction and as such it has no relevancy so far as actual physical possession of the land is concerned. That apart, this Ex. 3 appears to have come into existence in 1967 about 2 years after the institution of the suit. Similarly, no reliance was placed on Ex. 2 series which are for the year 1964-1965, but bear the stamp of "without prejudice". He has placed reliance upon p.w. 2 who in his cross-examination has stated that the suit land was amalgamated with the land of the Defendants in the year 1955 and they are growing betel thereon for the last 3 years. This apparently militates against the Plaintiff?s story of dispossession on 23-5-1965. Therefore, according to the lower appellate Court, the preponderance of probabilities is that the Defendants were in possession for mere than 12 years in their own right. This finding is unimpeachable in the Second Appeal. 5. It is contended on behalf of the Appellant that since the estate vested in 1963 by notification No. 27478EAI-1/63/R dated 27-4-1963, a copy of which was produced before me and the land was settled with him as would be indicated by Ex. 3, he was entitled to recover possession on that footing. The suit land is an agricultural land. Therefore, upon vesting, Section 7 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act (hereinafter referred to as the ?Act?) would be applicable. 3, he was entitled to recover possession on that footing. The suit land is an agricultural land. Therefore, upon vesting, Section 7 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act (hereinafter referred to as the ?Act?) would be applicable. It is admitted that the Plaintiff was an intermediary in respect thereof and accordingly, upon vesting, the suit land, if in khas possession of the Plaintiff, shall be deemed to be settled with him and he shall hold the same as occupancy raiyat under the Government. This deemed settlement is conditional upon the fact that he is found to be in khas possession thereof on the date of vesting i.e. 27-4-1963. He incurs the liability of losing his aforesaid right accruing to him by operation of Section 7 of the Act, if he fails to apply for settlement u/s 8A of the Act within the period of limitation provided therefor. Sub-section (3) of Section 8A provides that: On the failure of filing the claims within the period specified under this section the provisions of Clause (h) of Section 5 shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 6, 7 and 8, apply as if the right of possession of the lands or buildings or structures, as the case may be, had vested in the State Government by the operation of this Act and thereupon the right to make any such claim as aforesaid shall stand extinguished. No material has been produced in the Courts below to prove that the Plaintiff had, in fact, made a claim u/s 8A of the Act. The necessary conclusion is that his right to the land must be deemed to have been extinguished. That apart, as found by the first appellate Court below, the Plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land till the date of the suit and even thereafter. If so, the deemed settlement of this land with the Plaintiff as envisaged u/s 7 of the Act would not fructify. It is also well settled that after vesting of the estate the intermediary has no right even to sue for recovery of possession from trespassers. His rights under the Act, if any, will be worked out under the provisions of the Act. In the circumstances, he cannot claim recovery of possession from the Defendant in this suit. Ex. 3 is not a document of title. His rights under the Act, if any, will be worked out under the provisions of the Act. In the circumstances, he cannot claim recovery of possession from the Defendant in this suit. Ex. 3 is not a document of title. It also does not give any right of suit to the Plaintiff. This Ex. 3, therefore, renders no assistance to the Plaintiff. That document, as has also been found by the lower appellate Court, is only a paper transaction and has come into existence after institution of the suit. Further, the Defendants having been in possession of this land in their right openly and peaceably, for more than 12 years before the date of vesting, they had acquired title to it as of an intermediary. They would become, therefore, intermediaries on the date of vesting. They would be equally liable to lose their interest if they failed to apply u/s 8A of the Act. What would happen, as between them and the Government, to their rights acquired by adverse possession, in such an eventuality, is not a matter for consideration here. But the fact which stands out, as found by the lower appellate Court, is that the Plaintiff was not in possession within 12 years of the suit and he has not established that he made a claim u/s 8A of the Act and, in the circumstances, his suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession must fail. His suit, therefore, has been rightly dismissed by the lower appellate Court. 6. In the result, therefore, the appeal fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, there would be no order for costs of this Court. Final Result : Dismissed