JUDGMENT : S.K. Ray, J. - This appeal by the Defendants arises out of a suit for eviction from the suit land on the ground that they are in unlawful occupation and cultivation of the same as trespassers. 2. The admitted facts are that Khetra Jena, father of the Defendants was a sikimi tenant in respect of the suit land which fell to the Plaintiff?s share in a partition amongst the Plaintiff and his co-sharers. Khetra Jena was recorded as sikimi tenant in the current settlement Record-of-rights vide Ex. D. On 28-12-1965 Khetra Jena filed an application u/s 4(5) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred-to as the Act) for declaration of his status as a Raiyat (Ex. B). While that application was pending adjudication, Khetra died on 31-1-1967. Thereafter, on 3-3-1967, the present suit was filed by the Plaintiff for the aforesaid relief. On 21-12-1907, the Appellants filed an application in the O.L.R. case to be substituted in place of Khetra (Ex. A). The suit for eviction was decreed on 22-4-1969. On 14-11-1969 the O.L.R. Officer rejected the petition for substitution and ultimately dismissed the case as will appear from the order of the Revenue Officer, a copy of which was filed before me and correctness of which was not in dispute. In doing so, he relied upon the observation of the Munsif in the suit that Khetra?s application u/s 4(5) of the Act had abated as upon his death the petition for substitution had not been filed within the period, prescribed therein, it having been filed beyond 6 months of such death. 3. The sale point canvassed by Mr. Ram is that Khetra acquired raiyati right u/s 4(1)(i) of the Act and upon his death, that raiyati right was transmitted to the Defendants by succession and therefore, the proceeding for eviction of the Defendants was entertain able only by a Revenue Officer and upon specified grounds, as provided therein. Consequently the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for the relief which involves adjudication of matters falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer. In substantiation of the aforesaid contention, he has placed reliance on Sections 2(26), 4(i), 6, 8 and 12 of the Act. 4. Mr. Consequently the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for the relief which involves adjudication of matters falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer. In substantiation of the aforesaid contention, he has placed reliance on Sections 2(26), 4(i), 6, 8 and 12 of the Act. 4. Mr. Rath for the Respondent, on the other hand, contends that Khetra would not acquire raiyati right until in a proceeding u/s 4(5) of the Act the Revenue Officer has passed an order declaring him or, upon his death, his heirs as raiyats in respect of the suit land. He relies upon the prefatory words "subject to the provisions of Sub-sections (5) to (8)" occurring in Section 4(1) of the Act. He, it therefore, proceeds to argue that as the case instituted by Khetra before the Revenue Officer was dismissed, the civil Court was not inhibited from entertaining the suit and disposing it of on merits. 5. These contentions require careful consideration. Section 2(26) of the Act defines ?raiyat? as meaning a person who is or is deemed to be a raiyat, as such, under the provisions of the saw Act. Section 4 of the Act enumerates persons who shall be deemed to be raiyats for the purposes of the Act in respect of the lands held by them. Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act provides: 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. As admitted by the Plaintiff, Khetra Jena was immediately before the commencement of the Act on 25-9-1965 in personal cultivation of the suit land and was recorded as an under-raiyat (sikimi) in the record-of-rights of 1962 (Ex. D) prepared under the provisions of the Orissa Tenancy Act (a law in force at the time). Apart from the opening words "subject to the provisions of Sub-sections (5) to (8)", Clause (i) of Section 4(1) of the Act fully applies to Khetra. Now the question is whether by reason of those opening words, accrual of rayati right is postponed until the declaration IS made by the Revenue Officer u/s 4(5) of the Act. Apart from the opening words "subject to the provisions of Sub-sections (5) to (8)", Clause (i) of Section 4(1) of the Act fully applies to Khetra. Now the question is whether by reason of those opening words, accrual of rayati right is postponed until the declaration IS made by the Revenue Officer u/s 4(5) of the Act. Sub-sections (5) to (8) of Section 4 are extracted here in below: (5) The Revenue Officer, on an application in that behalf in the prescribed form and manner by the sub-tenant or under-raiyat, as the case may be, referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (sic) made not later than ninety days from the commencement of this Act or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as such officer in his discretion allows, may, after such enquiry as may be necessary, by order declare such sub-tenant or under-raiyat to be a raiyat in respect of the land referred to in the said clause. Provided that any such sub-tenant or under-raiyat who has failed to make an application within the said period, may make such application within ninety days from the date of commencement of the Orissa Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1966: Provided further that any such sub-tenant or under raiyat who has failed to make such application within any of the periods specified in this sub-section may make an application within a period of two years from the commencement of the Orissa Land Reforms (amendment) Act, 1973. Provided further that any such application made after the expiry of the period specified in this sub-section and before the aforesaid date shall, for all purposes, be treated as an application filed within the period of limitation. (6) While making an order under Sub-section (5) the Revenue Officer shall determine the compensation in respect of the land which shall be five times the fair rent for the land, to be paid by such sub-tenant or under-raiyat to the person or ?persons (not being the Government or land-holder) mediately or immediately under whom the land was being held prior to the commencement of this Act in proportion to the rent that each was receiving in respect thereof and shall apportion the compensation between the persons entitled thereto. (7) No order under Sub-section (5) shall take effect unless the sub-tenant or under-raiyat, as the case may be, has made the payment in the prescribed manner before the expiry of one Year from the date of the order and thereupon the land shall, with effect from the date of expiry of the said period, revert to the person immediately under whom such sub-tenant or under-raiyat was holding the same. (8) The rights of all persons entitled to receive compensation in accordance with Sub-section (6) shall stand extinguished with effect from the date of expiry of the period referred to in Sub-section (7) and the sub-tenant or under-raiyat as the case may be, shall be liable to pay a fair and equitable rent to be determined by the Revenue Officer in the prescribed manner to the Government or the person, as the case may be, immediately under whom the land is held consequent on such extinguishment. These provisions deal with one topic and require that when an ?under-raiyat? makes an application to the Revenue Officer under Sub-section (5) within the prescribed time, he shall pass an order declaring him to be raiyat after making an enquiry determining the compensation payable in respect of the land by the Applicant-under raiyat to the person immediately under whom he was holding the land prior to the commencement of the Act. Until the compensation so determined is paid by the under raiyat, the order declaring him to be a raiyat shall not take effect. If the payment is not made in the manner and within the time prescribed under Sub-section (7) to Section 4, the order of declaration will automatically stand nullified in consequence whereof the land will revert to the person immediately under whom the under raiyat was holding prior to the commencement of the Act. Upon payment of the compensation determined, the right of the person who immediately before the commencement of the Act was entitled to receive rent either in kind or in money from the ?deemed raiyat shall stand extinguished and the ?deemed raiyat? Upon payment of the compensation determined, the right of the person who immediately before the commencement of the Act was entitled to receive rent either in kind or in money from the ?deemed raiyat shall stand extinguished and the ?deemed raiyat? shall be subrogated to the position of raiyat and so shall be liable to pay the fair and equitable rent as may be determined by the Revenue Officer either to the Government, if There be no other intermediate tenant between it and the ?deemed raiyat?, or to such intermediate person, if any, who stood in the position of a land lord to the raiyat whose interest in land was acquired by the ?deemed raiyat?. The sole object of enacting Sub-section (5) to (8) is to provide a mode of acquisition of the rights of the immediate landlord of a sikimi tenant or an under-raiyat in land and vest the same in the under-raiyat who in consequence thereof acquires the interest in land equivalent to that of his erstwhile landlord. Those provisions became necessary as under the existing tenancy law an under-raiyat or a sikimi raiyat has no interest in land he cultivates and cannot be a raiyat in respect thereof until the raiyat?s interest in land vests in him. As already indicated they empower the Revenue Officer to determine the quantum of compensation payable by the under-raiyat and upon payment of such compensation the transference of the interest of the raiyat in land to the ?deemed raiyat? takes place and the latter thereupon becomes a full fledged raiyat. There is a time limit provided for payment of compensation, and, in default, the land will ?revert to the person immediately under whom sub-tenant or under-raiyat was holding the same". That means that the original raiyat is divested of his land as soon as order is passed and the same (sic) in him if the under-raiyat defaults in making payment of the compensation, during the period of one year provided therefore. During that one year the under-raiyat is deemed to be a raiyat for the purposes of the Act and is entitled to all protection and privileges conferred on a raiyat under the Act. That is on the basis that raiyati right is deemed to vest in? the under-raiyat conditionally only upon the order of the Revenue Officer declaring to be a raiyat being passed. That is on the basis that raiyati right is deemed to vest in? the under-raiyat conditionally only upon the order of the Revenue Officer declaring to be a raiyat being passed. Thus until the proceedings envisaged in Sub-sections (5) to (8) are concluded by the Revenue Officer passing an order declaring the under-raiyat to be a raiyat, the former shall not be deemed to be a raiyat. 6. From the foregoing discussions it appears to me that the legislative intendment was that no rights in land shall accrue finally to an under-raiyat until compensation determined by the Revenue Officer had been paid. Subject to this final outcome of a proceeding u/s 4(5) of the Act and after the Revenue Officer?s order making the declaration is passed, an under-raiyat shall be deemed to be a raiyat under the provisions of the Act. Thus, Khetra Jena had no right of a "deemed raiyat" before the Revenue Officer passed an order declaring him to be a raiyat and determined the amount of compensation payable and he had no such right when he died. Since his under raiyati interest was not heritable there was no question of substitution in the proceedings u/s 4(5) of the Act. In the context of the true, scope and meaning of Section 4 Sub-sections (5) to (8) of the Act as indicated above, right to apply u/s 4(5) is a personal right of the "deemed raiyat" i.e. of Khetra. The right to continue the proceeding u/s 4(5) of the Act died with Khetra and his legal representatives cannot claim to be substituted in his place. That this is the real position is also indicated by Rule 3 of the Orissa Land Reforms (General) Rules, 1965. It is significant that this rule while providing application of certain provisions of CPC to any proceeding before the Revenue Officer under the Act does not extend application of Order 22 which deals with death of parties and substitution to a proceeding u/s 4(5) of the Act. The legislative object is clear that if an Applicant u/s 4(5) has failed to obtain Revenue Officer?s declaration of his rights to land as a raiyat by successful termination of that proceeding, his successors cannot get any benefit. The legislative object is clear that if an Applicant u/s 4(5) has failed to obtain Revenue Officer?s declaration of his rights to land as a raiyat by successful termination of that proceeding, his successors cannot get any benefit. The right to continue the proceeding u/s 4(5) of the Act dies with Khetra when his death has occurred before the passing of the Revenue Officer?s order u/s 4(5) and his legal representatives cannot claim to be substituted in that proceeding. The matter will be different if the death had occurred after Revenue Officer?s order but before the lapse of one year provided in Section 4(7) for payment of compensation. They are, therefore, in no better position than trespassers in respect of the suit land and are not entitled to any protection under the Act. 7. Assuming that the Revenue Officer had any inherent power to make substitution and continue the proceeding initiated by Khetra, he has not only refused to substitute the Defendants but has ultimately dismissed the proceeding initiated by Khetra. That may be right or that may be wrong. So far as civil Court is concerned, it is the final order on these matters which counts. Once the Revenue Officer has refused to pass an order declaring either Khetra or the Defendants, to be raiyats and dismissed the proceeding u/s 4(5) of the Act for some reason that decision is final for all purposes. It is not the province of the civil Court to go behind the reasons for such a decision nor can it sit In judgment over it, unless the Revenue Officer?s order is attacked as having been passed without jurisdiction. The consequence of the final order of the Revenue Officer is that raiyati right was not declared either in favour of Khetra or in favour of the Defendants. In the circumstances, Section 67 of the Act cannot be a bar to the civil Court taking cognizance of the present suit. Sikimi right of Khera is not heritable and since Khetra had not acquired any raiyati right, the Defendants cannot step into his shoes and if they are in possession of the suit lands, they would be in possession only as trespassers. In my opinion, the Courts below have rightly decreed the suit. Thus the sole point canvassed by Mr. Ram fails. 8. In my opinion, the Courts below have rightly decreed the suit. Thus the sole point canvassed by Mr. Ram fails. 8. In the result, therefore, the appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case without costs. Final Result : Dismissed