JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra. J. 1. This second appeal by the Defendant is directed against the reversing judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Puri decreeing -the Plaintiffs' suit. The Respondents filed the suit (O.S. No. 373 of 1959) in the court of the Munsif, Puri for declaration of title, confirmation of possession, in the alternative, recovery of possession and for correction of has settlement of records of right. The suit property constitutes a thatched house on sabik plot No. 489 (Ac. 12 decimals) under sabik holding No. 32 corresponding to hal plot No. 548 under holding No. 84 in mauza Subalpur under Pipili P.S. in the District of Puri. The gist of the Plaintiffs' case is that, their ancestors purchased the suit-land from the recorded owner in the year 1915 and were in continuous possession of the same. The Plaintiffs, as their heirs, own and possess the said property. The Defendant (Appellant) was permitted to occupy the suit house for a period of 1 year from Baisakha, 1959 till Baisakha, 1960. Thereafter, he gave up possession of the same in favour of the Plaintiffs. During the Hal Settlement Operation (in 1967), the Defendant managed to get his name recorded as a sikimi tenant in respect of the suit-property. Thereafter, the Defendant forcibly occupied the suit-house on 5-11-1969. On these allegations, the Plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the reliefs stated above. 2. The Defendant took the plea that his ancestors were possessing the suit-property as tenants lander the recorded owners. They constructed the dwelling house and granery on the suit-land. According to the Defendant, after the death of his father, about 40 years back, he has been in continuous possession of the suit-property. He asserts that the Hal Settlement record-of-right has been prepared after due enquiry at, the spot and with consent of the Plaintiffs. He claimed to have acquired occupancy right in the suit-property. The Defendant further alleged that in a proceeding initiated under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 ('O.L.R. Act' for short), his claim to be declared a raiyat has been accepted by the Revenue Officer, Pipili on 27-9-1969. The Defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit. On the pleading of the parties, the trial court framed six issues, of which issue numbers 3 and 6 are relevant for the present purpose. The Defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit. On the pleading of the parties, the trial court framed six issues, of which issue numbers 3 and 6 are relevant for the present purpose. They are (1) whether the Defendant is an occupancy raiyat and not liable for ejectment? (6) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try the suit and it is barred by provision of O.L.R. Act? On consideration of the materials on record, the trial court came to hold that he has no jurisdiction to try the suit since it is barred under provisions of Section 67, O.L.R. Act. He further came to hold that the case of the Plaintiffs that the Defendant was licensee in respect of the suit-property fails. The Defendant has failed to prove the origin and terms of tenancy and hence his case of acquisition of sikimi right over the suit-property also fails. In view of the finding regarding lack of jurisdiction of the, Civil Court, the trial court dismissed the suit. 3. On appeal by the Plaintiffs (Respondents) the lower appellate court reversed the decision of the trial court and held that the bar u/s 67, O.L.R. Act does not operate in the present case and the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He, further held that, the Defendant is neither sthitiban tenant nor sikimi tenant of the suit-property He, therefore, decreed the Plaintiffs' suit in toto. It is pertinent to mention here that the Hal Settlement record-of-right finally published in 1967 shows the Plaintiffs to be the sthitiban tenants in respect of the suit-property. And the Defendant to be in possession thereof as a sikimi tenant under the former. On the question of jurisdiction the lower appellate court has proceeded on the basis that the declaration by the Revenue Officer that the Defendant is a raiyat in respect of the suit-property in exercise of power u/s 4(5), O.L.R. Act (Ext. D) was without jurisdiction. Therefore, the bar u/s 67 did not operate to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in course of his judgment (para. 7) the lower appellate court has observed that there can be any dispute that the suit-house being a dwelling house, action, if any, is to be taken u/s 9 of the O.L.R. Act. D) was without jurisdiction. Therefore, the bar u/s 67 did not operate to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in course of his judgment (para. 7) the lower appellate court has observed that there can be any dispute that the suit-house being a dwelling house, action, if any, is to be taken u/s 9 of the O.L.R. Act. The only question that has been raised in this case is whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The learned Counsel appearing for both the parties have advanced elaborate arguments on this point In order to appreciate the submissions made by the learned Counsel it is necessary to refer to a few provisions of the O.L.R. Act. Section 2(31) of the Act defines the term 'tenant' as follows "Tenant", means a person who has no rights in the land of another hut under the system generally known as Bhag, Sanja or Kata or such similar expression as under any other system, law, contract, custom or usage personally cultivates such land on payment of rent in cash or in kind or in Loth or on condition of delivery of that person (a) Either a share of the produce of such land; or (b) The estimated value of a portion of the crop raised on the land; or (c) A fixed quantity of produce irrespective of the yield from the land; or (d) Produce or its estimated value partly in any of the ways described above and partly in another; Section 3 which provides that the Act is to override other laws reads as follows Act to override other laws-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. Section 4 of the Act defines 'raiyat' and makes provisions for determination whether a person is entitled to be declared as raiyat or not reads as follows Raiyats - (1) The following persons shall be deemed to be raiyats for the purpose of this Act in respect of the 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; (b) A raiyat in the districts of Angul and Khondmals within the meaning of the Angul Laws Regulation, 4 of 1936 and the Khondmals Laws Regulations, 5 of 1916, respectively; (c) A raiyat in a raiyatwari village in the Sambalpur or Bargarh subdivision of the District of Sambalpur within the meaning of Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 18 of 1881 ; (d) A person who, under an Inamdar of an Inam which is not an estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 whether or not such Inam has vested in the State, in the districts of Ganjam and Koraput or the subdivision of Baliguda holds lands in such Inam with heritable and transferable rights therein; (e) The holder or Raiyatwari Patta under the raiyatwari settlement of the districts of Ganjam and Koraput and in Baliguda subdivision of Boudh district; (f) A person with whom land has been settled for agricultural purposes after the commencement of this Act under a lease from a landholder, or under a permanent lease from Government; (g) Persons entitled to acquire rights of occupancy under Clauses (g) and (h) of Section 7 of the Orissa Merged States (Laws) Act, IV of 1950; (h) Subject to the provisions of Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4), persons who are temporary lessees in personal cultivation of lands in the vested castes held under Government of agricultural proposes, persons who are in personal cultivation of such lands held either mediately or immediately under such temporary lessees and the successor-in-interest of any such persons): Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to char and land or land held under the custom of utabandi or similar other customs. Section 9 of the Act which deals with dwelling house of raiyat and tenant provide as follows- 9. Section 9 of the Act which deals with dwelling house of raiyat and tenant provide as follows- 9. Dwelling houses of raiyats and tenants - (1) Every person who is a raiyat or a tenant in respect of any land but has no permanent and heritable rights in respects of any site on which his dwelling house or farm house stands, shall, with effect from the commencement of this Act, be deemed to be a raiyat in respect of the whole of such site or a portion thereof not exceeding one fifth of an acre whichever is less if he or his predecessor-in-interest has- (a) obtained permission, express or implied, from the person having permanent land heritable rights in the site and having right to accord permission for the construction of such house and (b) built such house at his own expense. (2) If immediately before the commencement of this Act, any person had permanent and heritable rights in the site, in a capacity other than that of a land-holder, the right of all such persons shall stand extinguished and they shall be entitled to compensation from the raiyat or tenant, as the case may be equal to ten times the fair and equitable rent, payable for the site under Sub-section (3). The classes of raiyats entitled to such compensation shall share it equally and each such share shall be divided equally amongst persons belonging to the class to which the share relates: Provided that, nothing in this Sub-section shall have the effect of extinguishing the rights of Government in the said site. (3) The persons who becomes a raiyat in respect of the site specified in Sub-section (1) shall be liable to pay fair and equitable rent therefore (to the Government or the land-holder, as the case may be) immediately under whom he holds consequent on the extinguishment of rights referred to in Sub-section (2). (4) In case of dispute about the amount of rent so payable or about the apportionment of compensation, the Revenue Officer shall on an application by any persons interested filed in the manner and within the time prescribed hold such enquiry as may be necessary and decided such dispute. Section 12 makes provisions; for decision of disputes among landlords and raiyats: 12. Section 12 makes provisions; for decision of disputes among landlords and raiyats: 12. Decision of disputes among landlords and raiyats - (1) Any dispute between a raiyat and his landlord relating to (i) The landlord's right to evict the raiyat u/s 8, or (ii) The rights conferred under Sections 4, 9 and 18 or (iii) The raiyat's rights to possession of the land and his rights to the benefits under this Act, shall he decided by the Revenue Officer on au application to be filed by any person interested: Provided that such application shall be filed before Revenue Officer ill the prescribed manner within sixty days from the date on which the dispute arises. (2) On receipt of an application under Sub-section (1) the Revenue Officer shall, after making such enquiry as may be necessary pass such orders as he deems fit. (3) The Revenue Officer may make such further steps as he may consider necessary to give effect to the orders passed under Sub-section (2). Section 15 which provides for recovery of rent and dispute between landlord and raiyat or tenant in Clause '(d)' of Sub-section (1) makes the following: (d) the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant; shall be decided by the Revenue Officer on application to be filed in the prescribed manner by any party interested. Section 58 of the Act makes provision any person aggrieved by an order under different provisions mentioned therein. Section 59 of the Act provides for revision against the appellate order as well as a general power of revision by the Board of Revenue on being moved in that behalf by the Collector of the district or by the Land Reforms Commissioner. Section 60 of the Act vests power of review in the officer to make the order or his successor in office to correct in clerical mistakes or errors in course of proceeding under the Act. Section 61 provides that any order passed under any of the provisions of this Act shall subject, to any order passed in appellate or revision, as the case may be, be final and shall not be called in question in any court of law. Section 67 of the Act provides for bar of jurisdiction of civil court in the following terms: 67. Section 67 of the Act provides for bar of jurisdiction of civil court in the following terms: 67. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court-Save as otherwise expressly prodded in this Act, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding so far as it relates to any matter which any officer or other competent authority is empowered by or under this Act, to decide. 4. From the provisions quoted above, it is clear that the Act provides the procedure for determination of various questions/disputes that may possibly arise between a landlord and a raiyat or a tenant. The determination of relationship or landlord and tenant is also provided under the statute. It is also manifest from the provisions that the procedure prescribed under the special statute is a complete code in itself. The correctness of the order passed by the Revenue Officer in exercise of powers in any of the provisions of this statute can be connected by challenging the same before the appellate or revisional quorums. Section 67 of the Act expressly bars the jurisdiction or the Civil Court to entertain any suit or proceeding relating to any matter which any officer or other competent, authority is empowered by under the Act to decide. 5. Examined in the light of these principle the reason given by the lower appellate court that since the Revenue Officer went wrong in exercise of his jurisdiction in passing an order u/s 4(5) of the Act, hence the Civil Court retains its jurisdiction in the matter is palpably erroneous and unsustainable. It may be reiterated here that the lower appellate court himself observed that action if any in this matter was available to be taken u/s 9 of the Act, thus, accepting to the position that the subject matter of the dispute came within the purview of the Section 9 of the Act. This is also apparent from the pleadings of the parties which unmistakably give the impression that the crux of the dispute is whether the Defendant is a sikimi tenant in respect of the suit property with the dwelling house standing thereon and if so whether he is entitled to be declared as raiyat u/s 9 of the Act. 6. The above views gain support from the several decisions of this Court, i.e. Pandaba Sahu Vs. Banchha Palei and Another, Sankarkumar Bhatter and Ors. 6. The above views gain support from the several decisions of this Court, i.e. Pandaba Sahu Vs. Banchha Palei and Another, Sankarkumar Bhatter and Ors. v. Tahasildar-cum-Revenue Officer, Basta and Ors. ILR (1975) Cutt. 1926, Gopinath Jew v. Rahas Mohanty, Dibyasingh Samant and Anr. v. Hata Behera and Ors., Brajabandhu Patnaik and Anr. v. Hari Behera and Ors. In the case of Sankar Kumal Bhattar and Ors. v. Tahasildar-cum-Revenue Officer, Basta and Ors. L.L.B. (1975) Cutt. 1926 (supra) the Division Bench of this Court held: It appears from the scheme of the Act that there is a hierarchy of authorities to administer till provisions of the Act and those authorities are competent to decide all questions of fact and law which fall to be considered under any of the provisions of the Act. Thus, apart from creating a complete code which authorises investment of powers in the said hierarchy of authorities to administer the Act, it also creates new rights and provides new remedy. The Revenue Officer is thus, the only competent authority to decide the dispute regarding existence of relationship of landlord and tenant, between the Petitioner's and the opposite parties as is indicated in Section 15(1)(d) of the Act and the legislative intent in quite clear that such dispute must be decided in accordance with provisions of the Act, notwithstanding the pendency of a suit in the Civil Court regarding the self-same matter and notwithstanding the general law that the right of suit including right of appeal is a vested right. 7. In the result the Second Appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court is set aside and the decision of the trial court, dismissing the suit as not maintainable is confirmed. Parties will bear their respective costs throughout. Final Result : Allowed