JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, J. - This appeal, by Defendant No. 1, arises out of a reversing judgment in a suit for declaration of title to and recovery of possession of 0. 40 acre of land appertaining to Bhogra plot No. 578 in village Kapse under Sundergarh P.S. 2. The Plaintiffs? case was that the Bhogra lands of village Kapse though recorded only in the name of the Goantia were divided in the Goantia?s finally according to the rules and custom long ago during the time of the ancestors of the parties and that the descendants of each branch were possessing the share allotted to their respective ancestors. Bidyadhar Naik got the suit lands in his share and was in possession of the same. He died issueless on 4-3-1965 leaving behind him the Plaintiff No. 1 and Plaintiff No. 2, his widow and mother respectively as the legal heirs. The Plaintiffs, cultivated the suit lands in 1965 but Defendant No. 1 forcibly disposed them on 27-7-1965 claiming to have got a permanent lease in respect of the same from original Defendant No. 2 Anirudha. 3. Defendant No. 1 filed ?written statement contending that he took permanent lease of the suit lands from Anirudha in whose share the same had been allotted on partition and that he has been in possession since 9-4-1965. He also contended that neither Bidyadhar nor the Plaintiffs were ever in possession. 4. The original Defendant No. 2 Anirudha Naik filed a separate written statement supporting the Plaintiffs case. He died during the pendency of the suit and his legal heirs were substituted. 5. The suit was filed on 29-10-1965. The Orissa Merged Territories (Village Offices Abolition) Act (Act 10 of 1963) came into force on 1-4-1966. On a preliminary hearing of the suit the learned Subordinate Judge of Sundargarh came to the finding that the suit lands having absolutely vested in the State Government free from encumbrances the Plaintiffs could not claim declaration of title to and recovery of possession of the same. Accordingly, be dismissed the suit as not maintainable. On appeal by the Plaintiffs, the learned Additional District Judge of Sundargarh reversed the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge and remanded the suit for a decision as to whether the Plaintiffs had title on the date of the suit and whether by then they were entitled to recovery of possession. Accordingly, be dismissed the suit as not maintainable. On appeal by the Plaintiffs, the learned Additional District Judge of Sundargarh reversed the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge and remanded the suit for a decision as to whether the Plaintiffs had title on the date of the suit and whether by then they were entitled to recovery of possession. The decision of the lower appellate Court is assailed in this appeal as being contrary to law and facts. 6. Bhogra lands are held by the sole Goantia or co-sharer Goantias only by way of remuneration for holding the office of Goantia or co-sharer Goantias. Section 3 of Act 10 of 1963 provides that notwithstanding anything in any law, usage, settlement grants and or order or in any judgment, decree or order of a Court, with effect from and on the appointed date, all Bhogra lands shall stand resumed and vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Section 4 of the Act provides as follows: Section 4(1). If any question arises as to whether a person was immediately before the appointed date the holder of any Village Office, the Collector shall after giving the person affected an opportunity of being heard and after holding an 'enquiry decide the question'. (2) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Collector under Sub-section (1) may within thirty days of such decision prefer an appeal to the Board of Revenue and, the decision of the Board on such appeal subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 13 shall be final. Section 5 of the Act provides for subsequent settlement of the land resumed u/s 3 of the Act with the holder of the village Office with him and all those other persons, if any, who may be in the enjoyment of the land or any part thereof as his co-sharer or as tenants under him or under such co-sharer to the extent that each such person was in separate and actual cultivating? possession of the same immediately before the appointed date. After the coming into force of the Act the suit lands which are admittedly Bhogra lands vested absolutely in the State Government and it in for the appropriate authorities prescribed under the Act to decide as to with whom the land should be settled. possession of the same immediately before the appointed date. After the coming into force of the Act the suit lands which are admittedly Bhogra lands vested absolutely in the State Government and it in for the appropriate authorities prescribed under the Act to decide as to with whom the land should be settled. Any dispute as to whether a person was, immediately before the appointed date; in actual cultivating possession of the land is to be deeded by the Collector after holding an enquiry under Sub-section (1) of Section 4. Provisions have been made u/s 13 of the Act for appeals and revisions against the orders passed by the Collector and the Board of Revenue and finality has been attached to the orders passed under that section. It is, therefore, manifest that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a dispute of, the present nature is impliedly barred. This view is fully modified by a decision of this Court reported in Savitri Bewa and Ors. v. Lal Sitansu Sekhar Singh Deo and Anr. 1971 (2) C.W.R. 873. 7. In reversing the findings of the trial Court the lower appellate Court appears to have relied on a decision of this Court reported in Pasupati Mahanto Vs. Damodar Mahanto and Others, The facts of that case are clearly distinguishable. The distinguishing feature is that the Act 10 of 1963 came into force during the pendency of the second appeal and by the time the second appeal came up for hearing the Bhogta lands had already been settled with the Plaintiff in appropriate? proceedings taken under the Act. Inconsideration of these facts it was held that as the Plaintiff had united in himself the right to possess which he had with him and also the occupancy tenancy right which had been conferred upon him by virtue of the settlement order the provisions of the Act, there was no legal bar to recover possession of the Suit land from the Defendant who was a rank trespasser. 8. No doubt, the Act reserves the right to the holder of the Village Office to have the lands settled with him; but the question whether the Plaintiffs were the holders of the Village Office in actual cultivating possessions of the Bhogra land immediately before the appointed day has to be decided by the Revenue authorities under the provisions of the special statute. Unless and until rights of occupancy are conferred on the Plaintiffs in accordance with the provisions of the Act they cannot approach the Civil Court for declaration of title to and recovery of possession of the land which has absolutely vested in the State Government. There is nothing on record to show that the lands have been settled with them in the meantime. The right to settlement of the land is a creation of the special statute wherein a remedy is also provided for the enforcement of such right. The Plaintiffs have, therefore, to approach the special forum created by the statute for enforcement of their rights, if any. The mere fact that a claim for (sic) profits (for which no Court fee has been paid) has been added to the plaint would not enlarge the rights of the Plaintiffs and enable them to approach the Civil Court. 9. It follows from the foregoing discussions, that the Plaintiffs? Suit is not maintainable and that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. I would, therefore, allow the appeal and setting aside the decision of the lower appellate Court restore that of the trial Court. In the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own costs through out. Final Result : Allowed