JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - Plaintiff is the Appellant against the judgment of affirmance in a suit for declaration of title and a further declaration that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer in Assessment Case No. 24 of 1963-64 is void and without jurisdiction. The suit land measures 14 mans 6 gunths 5 biswas and 8 gandas and constituted a Jagir called "Topa Paika Jagir". The Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 are two brothers and their father was a Topa Paika under the ruler, his work being to carry dak and camp equipments. The said Paika whose name was Panda Singh died when Plaintiff and his brother were minors and in accordance with the rule of inheritance of the Topa Paika Jagir, Plaintiff being the eldest son was accepted as Topa Paika and the suit land was recorded in his name, but as he was a minor then, in the Record-of-Rights, name of Defendant No. 1 who was the guardian of the Plaintiff was also noted as guardian. Plaintiff asserted in the plaint that Defendant No. 1 was never his guardian and such recording was illegal According to the assertion in the plaint, on the death of Plaintiff's father, his mother was managing the duties and responsibilities of a Topa Paika through hired labourers. Jagir system on being abolished, the land which was attached to such Jagir was settled with the Jagirdar on certain terms and conditions and accordingly the assessment case bearing No. 24 of 1964 was started in the Court of the S.D.O., Sadar, and the Record-of-Rights was prepared in the name of the Plaintiff by order of the S.D.O. dated 22-8-1963, but as Defendant No. 1 was recorded as guardian of the Plaintiff, he filed a petition for reviewing the order of the S.D.O. dated 22-8-1963. Ultimately, the S.D.O. made an enquiry and I reported to the Collector for recording the land jointly in the names of Plaintiff, his brother (Defendant No. 2) and Defendant No. 1, which was approved by the Collector on 30-1-1964. According to the Plaintiff neither the S.D.O. had any jurisdiction to review his earlier order dated 22-8-1963, nor the Collector had any jurisdiction to get the land recorded in the names of Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1. According to the Plaintiff neither the S.D.O. had any jurisdiction to review his earlier order dated 22-8-1963, nor the Collector had any jurisdiction to get the land recorded in the names of Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1. The Plaintiff also asserted that the Plaintiff was all along in possession of the land and Defendant No. 1 never possessed any part of the same. Because of the illegal orders passed by the Collector approving the report of the S.D.O. the Plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration. 2. Defendant No. 2 supported the Plaintiff's case in full and it is Defendant No. 1 who contested the suit. According to him one Gopi Singh who is the grand father of Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 was the Topa Paika and after the death of Gopi Singh, the father of the Plaintiff, namely Panda Singh and father of Defendant No. 1, namely Guru Singh were performing the job of Topa Paika, though Panda Singh was named as Topa Paika. After the death of Panda Singh, Defendant No. 1 performed the duties of Topa Paika till the system was abolished, but so far as the land attached to the Jagir is concerned, both Panda Singh and Guru Singh were enjoying half and half. After the death of Gopi Singh and also after death of Panda Singh, Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 were enjoying the same extent of Jagir land. According to the defence case, the S.D.O. considered these facts and directed that the land should be shared between both the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1. The allegation in the plaint to the effect that Plaintiff was all along in possession of the land was denied. Defendant No. 1 also took a plea that the suit was liable to be dismissed u/s 34 of the Specific Relief Act. 3. On these pleadings, the learned Subordinate Judge framed 8 issues and on issue Nos. 6 and 7 came to hold that Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 were working as Topa Paikas and were possessing the Jagir land half and half. It has further been found that the order of the S.D.O. dated 22-8-1963 cannot be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction since the same has been passed after proper enquiry. Issue No. 4 was not pressed. It has further been found that the order of the S.D.O. dated 22-8-1963 cannot be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction since the same has been passed after proper enquiry. Issue No. 4 was not pressed. So far as issue No. 5 is concerned, the learned Subordinate Judge has found that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to change the order of the revenue authority in setting the land with both the parties jointly. On the question of applicability of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, it has been found that in the absence of any prayer for any consequential relief, the suit is hit u/s 34 of the said Act. On issue No. 3, which is the issue on the question of limitation, it has also been found that the suit is barred by limitation. On these findings, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. 4. On appeal, the learned District Judge affirmed the finding to the effect that Defendant No. 1 had been working as Tapa Paika for a considerable period prior to the abolition of the system, although the land stood recorded in the name of Panda Singh, father of the Plaintiff and thereafter in the name 1 of the Plaintiff. The learned District Judge further found that Plaintiff was in possession of only half of the suit land out of the Tapa Paika Jagir land. The learned District Judge further came to the finding that though the land was impartible, in fact, both the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 were possessing half and half. On the question of validity of the order of the S.D.O., the learned District Judge found that the earlier order passed by the S.D.O. was one without any enquiry which was in violation of the principles of natural justice and the subsequent order passed on the objection filed by Defendant No. 1 was after due enquiry and must be held to be valid. The learned District Judge also affirmed the conclusion of the Subordinate Judge to the effect that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to question the settlement of the land made by the Collector. He also affirmed the conclusion with regard to the applicability of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and held that the suit was not maintainable in the absence of a prayer for recovery of possession. He also affirmed the conclusion with regard to the applicability of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and held that the suit was not maintainable in the absence of a prayer for recovery of possession. The learned District Judge also held agreeing with the learned Subordinate Judge that the suit was barred by limitation. Ultimately, the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal. Hence the present second appeal. 5. Mr. R.K. Mohapatra, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-Appellant contends that the Press-Note which confers power on the S.D.O. to make settlement of the land in favour of the person who was in actual possession on 1-7-1963 does not confer a power of review on the S.D.O. and, therefore, the subsequent order of the S.D.O. recommending that the land should be settled both in favour of the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 is one without jurisdiction and the Collector also had no jurisdiction to approve the same. The learned Counsel further contends that by virtue of the Press-Note as well as the original order of the S.D.O., a tenancy right was created in favour of the Plaintiff which cannot be taken away by another executive order passed by the S.D.O. On the question of applicability of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, Mr. Mohapatra contends that the said provision has no application as it was not necessary to ask for any consequential relief and further the question of limitation does not arise since the impugned order passed by the S.D.O. as well as the Collector is void and accordingly need not be set aside. 6. Mr. Naidu, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. I, on the other hand, contends that the original order passed by the S.D.O. setting the land in favour of the Plaintiff was not a final order and therefore, at that stage, the S.D.O. bad full jurisdiction to alter the same, particularly when he was satisfied that the matter had not been duly enquired into. Mr. Naidu further contends that under the Press-Note, it is the Collector who is authorised to pass the final order and in fact, he has so done when he has approved the recommendation of the S.D.O. by his order dated 30th January, 1964. Consequently, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the S.D.O. had no power of review is devoid of force. Mr. Consequently, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the S.D.O. had no power of review is devoid of force. Mr. Naidu further contends that the conclusions of both the courts below on the applicability of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and on the question of limitation are unassailable and cannot be reversed in this second appeal. 7. To appreciate the rival contentions, it would be necessary to examine the Press Note issued by the Government after abolition of some Jagirs including Topa Paika Jagir and the procedure for settlement of land contained in the said Press Note. Government in the Revenue and Excise Department issued a letter to the Collector. Mayurbhanj, on the question of abolition and settlement of Service Jagirs in Mayurbhanj district. In paragraph 3 of the said letter, Government accepted the proposal of the Collector for resumption of five types of Jagirs of which Tapa Paika is the last one with which the present case is concerned. It was further stated that the holders of the Jagirs may be called upon the voluntarily surrender their rights in the land in lieu of getting themselves settled with the land and other persons in actual possession as on 1-7-1963 may be settled with much land with rights of occupancy on payment of fair and equitable rent. It was also stated therein that a separate press note in this regard was being issued. Subsequently a press-note appears to have been issued by the State Government under Memo No. 49206/R. dated 22-8-1963 of the Revenue and Excise Department. It has been clearly stated in the said press note that as the services which the Jagirdars were rendering were no longer required, it was decided by the Government that they should be abolished and the jagir lands should be settled with occupancy rights therein on fair and equitable rent in favour of the holder of such jagir and others in actual possession as on 1-7-1963 free of salami subject to the condition that they need not perform the services any more for which the jagir was originally granted. It was also directed that jagir holders desirous of availaing themselves of this opportunity of acquiring occupancy right in lieu of surrendering their rights and interests in such jagir lands may apply to the Collector. It was also directed that jagir holders desirous of availaing themselves of this opportunity of acquiring occupancy right in lieu of surrendering their rights and interests in such jagir lands may apply to the Collector. Mayurbhanj or any other Revenue Officer authorised by him in this behalf on or before the 19th of October, 1963. In the press note referred to above there is no indication as to who was the Officer who was authorised to dispose of an application for settlement of land by a jagirdar. The learned Counsel for the Appellant is not in a position to rely on any other documents to indicate that the S.D.O. was competent to settle the land. The order of the S.D.O. in Assessment No. 24 of 1963-64 dated 22-8-1963 (Ext. 2) is the only document on which the learned Counsel for the Appellant relies in support of his contention that under the said order, the land in question was settled in favour of the Plaintiff on occupancy basis and, therefore, he contends that there was no further power of review of the said settlement as has been done by the S.D.O. In this case by reviewing his earlier order dated 22-8 1963 and recommending for the settlement of the land both in the name of Plaintiff and Defendants 1 and 2 as per his order dated 21-1-1964 (Ext. D). As has been found by me earlier, the press note itself did not indicate that the S.D.O. was the authority competent to settle the land in question. That apart, a careful reading of the order of the S.D.O. dated 22-8-1963 (Ext. D) does not indicate that final order in the assessment case was passed on that date, though the S.D.O. appears to have taken the tentative decision that the land should be assessed to rent with effect from October Kist 1963 and converted into Hasilat. In fact, the said order nowhere indicates that the land is being settled with the Plaintiff in accordance with the press note issued by the Government but it is merely an order showing that the land in question be converted into Hasilat. In fact, the said order nowhere indicates that the land is being settled with the Plaintiff in accordance with the press note issued by the Government but it is merely an order showing that the land in question be converted into Hasilat. On the other hand the order-sheet would indicate that after the order dated 22-8-1963, one Suna Singh filed objection and there after the matter was sent to the Revenue Inspector for enquiry and report and on receipt of the said report and on consideration of the materials the S.D.O. passed the order dated 21-1-1964 requiring the Collector to pass appropriate orders. Ultimately the Collector passed the order on 5-2-1964 (Ext. E) whereunder the Collector directed settlement of the land in favour of Defendant No. 1 as wen as Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2. It is, therefore, clear that the Collector was the competent authority and not the S.D.O. and in that view of the matter, there is no question of any review of the earlier order passed by the S.D.O. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant proceeds in this regard on a misconception of fact and law. Further, the learned District Judge has found as a fact that on 1-7-1963, both Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 were in possession of the land in question. The press note issued by the Government indicates that the jagir land is to be settled with the holder of the jagir and other persons in actual possession as on 1-7-1963. The finding of the lower appellate court that Defendant No. 1 was in possession of the land in question on 1-7-1963 being one of pure question of fact cannot be disturbed in the second appeal. Consequently, in accordance with the press note laying down the police of settlement of jagir lands, the land has to be settled in favour of the holders of the jagir, namely Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 and the person in actual possession as on 1-7-1963, namely Defendant No. 1 and accordingly I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Collector under Ext. E. Both the contentions of the learned Counsel for the Appellant claiming that the land in question ought to have been settled exclusively in favour of the Plaintiff therefore, fail. 8. E. Both the contentions of the learned Counsel for the Appellant claiming that the land in question ought to have been settled exclusively in favour of the Plaintiff therefore, fail. 8. It is not necessary for me to go into the other question of non-maintainability of the suit in view of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act or that the suit being barred by limitation in view of my conclusions arrived at earlier. 9. In the ultimate result, therefore, the second appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed