JUDGMENT : R.C. Patnaik, J. - This is a Second Appeal by the Defendant against concurrent decisions of the Courts below decreeing the Plaintiff's suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits. 2. The suit property originally belonged to Madan Sahu. He fell in arrears of land revenue. The land was sold in an auction under the provisions of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act by the Tahsildar, Jeypore in Revenue Recovery Case No. 38 of 1958-59. The Respondent was the highest bidder. Sale certificate was granted and possession was delivered to him. The Appellant, who was a relative of Madan Sahu (certificate-debtor), was brought up by the latter, as he was issueless. Neither Madan Sahu nor the Appellant ever questioned the sale or possession of the Respondent. Madan Sahu lived for about a decade after the sale. In the meanwhile, the Appellant was convicted in a dacoity case and was in jail. After his release, he created disturbance in the possession of the Respondent and in a proceeding initiated u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure his possession was declared by the Magistrate which furnished the cause of action for institution of the suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits. 3. The Defendant traversed the allegations made in the plaint. He claimed to be the adopted son of Madan Sahu and asserted that there was no sale, no delivery of possession to the Plaintiff-Respondent. When he was undergoing the sentence, the members of his family were in possession and his possession was rightly upheld and declared by the Magistrate. 4. The Courts below have found that the property was sold to the Respondent in a proceeding under the Madras Revenue Recovery Act possession thereof was delivered to him. The Appellant was not the adopted son of Madan. Inasmuch as the Plaintiff-Respondent bad title to the property and the suit had been instituted within the period of limitation, he was entitled to recovery of possession. Whereas the trial Court granted future mesne profits and negatived mesne profits pendente lite, on a cross-appeal by the Plaintiff-Respondent, pendente lite, mesne profits have been granted by the lower appellate Court, thereby giving a full decree to the Plaintiff-Respondent. 5. Shri P.V. Ramdas, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, raised two contentions. Whereas the trial Court granted future mesne profits and negatived mesne profits pendente lite, on a cross-appeal by the Plaintiff-Respondent, pendente lite, mesne profits have been granted by the lower appellate Court, thereby giving a full decree to the Plaintiff-Respondent. 5. Shri P.V. Ramdas, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, raised two contentions. Firstly, in the absence of any delegation by the Collector, the entire proceeding in the Revenue Recovery Case No. 38/58-59 was void and ultra vires, and the sale and delivery of possession were invalid. The Plaintiff-Respondent did not acquire any title and was, therefore, not entitled to any decree. Secondly, determination of mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 1000/- was perverse. 6. It is unnecessary for me to refer to various provisions of Madras Revenue Recovery Act. Suffice it to say that the law authorises the Collector or any other officer empowered on his behalf to conduct the proceeding. It is argued that since there is no material on record to show that there was delegation by the Collector of authority to any other officer, the entire proceeding and the actions taken are void in the absence of proof of delegation. 7. The Courts below have considered the evidence threadbare and have held that the property was attached, there was a proclamation for sale and pursuant to the proclamation, sale was held and confirmed and possession was delivered to the plaint-Respondent. The evidence of p.w. 6, the Revenue Inspector during the relevant period, clinches the controversies. It was he who delivered the possession of the land to the Plaintiff-Respondent. He proved Ext. 4, the receipt showing payment of one-fourth of the bid amount by the purchaser-Plaintiff. Exts. 5, 6 and 7 are the documents showing the steps taken in the proceeding. Ext. 2 is the sale certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Nowrangpur. The genuineness of the documents was impugned on the ground that the documents did not bear the date of sate or the date of issue Khata number was not correct. All these aspects have been considered by the Courts of facts and finding has been recorded that the disputed property was proceeded against and sold to the Plaintiff-Respondent and possession thereof was delivered to him also. The question is if the Revenue Divisional Officer. All these aspects have been considered by the Courts of facts and finding has been recorded that the disputed property was proceeded against and sold to the Plaintiff-Respondent and possession thereof was delivered to him also. The question is if the Revenue Divisional Officer. Nowrangpur, was competent under the provisions of law to conduct the proceeding and deliver possession of the land to the purchaser. The law authorises the Collector or any other officer authorised by him to take steps under the provisions of the Act. But, there is 00 document to show specifically the delegation of power by the Collector to the Revenue Divisional Officer. Mr. P.V. Ramdas, for the Appellant has urged that in the absence of any material there is no presumption that there was such delegation whereas Mr. Y. S. N. Murty for the Respondent has vehemently urged that a presumption is available to be drawn u/s 114 (e) that official act was regularly performed. 8. It is worthwhile to mention at this stage that Madan Sahu lived for a decade after the sale. He did not take any step to set aside the sale during his life time nor did the Plaintiff-Appellant. The Act, u/s 59, prescribes a period of six months within which a party' aggrieved by a proceeding under the Act can move the Civil Court for redress. Of course, if the proceeding is void and party is not dispossessed but continued to be in possession, he may ignore the proceeding. But, where he is dispossessed, he must approach the Civil Court for recovery of possession, he cannot take possession of the property forcibly. 9. It is not in dispute that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nowrangpur,) took all the steps in the proceeding, sold the property and delivered possession thereof to the Plaintiff Respondent. In the absence of proof of delegation, the presumption available u/s 114 (e) would assist the Plaintiff-Respondent. It may be noted that absence of delegation was not specifically pleaded; it was raised during arguments. This aspect would go against the Appellant if under the Jaw the Plaintiff-Respondent can take shelter behind the presumption. In Saeed Ahmed v. Syed Qamar Ali and Anr. A. I. R, 1973 AU. It may be noted that absence of delegation was not specifically pleaded; it was raised during arguments. This aspect would go against the Appellant if under the Jaw the Plaintiff-Respondent can take shelter behind the presumption. In Saeed Ahmed v. Syed Qamar Ali and Anr. A. I. R, 1973 AU. 21, the question was, if the Tahsildar who granted permission to the landlord to file a suit against the tenant u/s 3 of Uttar Pradesh Rent Control Act, bad been authorised by the Magistrate to grant such permission. The principles contained in Section 114 (e) of the Act was applied and it was held: .... The presumption is that official acts are always done in accordance with law. There is nothing wrong in the view taken by the Court below that the District Magistrate must have duly authorised the Tahsildar to grant permission u/s 3 to the landlord for filing suits for eviction of the tenants. However, the Defendant did not adduce any evidence to prove the contrary.... In Anumathi Sadhukhan Vs. A.K. Chatterjee the question was if the officer purporting to exercise powers under the Rice Mill Control Order, 1949 was authorised to perform the functions of the Commissioner. It was observed; The definition shows that any officer authorised by the Commissioner can perform his functions or duties under the Rice Mills Control Order, 1949. In the absence of anything to show to the contrary, it should be presumed that the opposite party is authorised to issue or pass the order that he has purported to do in this case. In Anwar Khan Vs. Bhoor Singh and Others Bapna, J. held: 'Prima facie' there is a presumption that official orders have been issued in exercise of powers vested in the Government Officer.... I have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that a presumption is available to be drawn that the Revenue Divisional Officer was authorised by the Collector to conduct the proceeding, attach the property, put it to sale and deliver possession thereof to the purchaser. The presumption is after all a presumption. It was open to the Defendant-Appellant to rebut the same by adducing evidence. As I have already indicated he did not even specifically plea that the Revenue Divisional Officer had not been authorised to exercise powers under the Madras Revenue Recovery Act. The burden was on him to prove the contrary. The presumption is after all a presumption. It was open to the Defendant-Appellant to rebut the same by adducing evidence. As I have already indicated he did not even specifically plea that the Revenue Divisional Officer had not been authorised to exercise powers under the Madras Revenue Recovery Act. The burden was on him to prove the contrary. He having failed to discharge the burden, the presumption squarely applies. 10. Shri Y. S. N. Murty, the learned Counsel for the Respondent, brought to my notice a decision reported in H. Tej Raj Chordia v. The Collector of Srikakulam and Ors. 1965 (1) A. W. R. 118, where the controversy was, if the Revenue Divisional Officer was authorised to confirm or set aside sales. Referring to Clause (13) of Standing Order No. 41 issued by the Board of Revenue, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the Revenue Divisional Officer had been authorised. Clause (13) reads as under: 13. Confirmation of sales.- A subordinate, Deputy or Assistant Collector in charge of a division of a District hag the power to confirm sales and issue certificates u/s 38, Act II of 1864. But the orders of these officers confirming or setting aside sales are subject to the general powers of revision and control exercisable by the Collector under Regulation VII of 1828. Such powers may be exercised by the Collector suo motu, or at the instance of one or other of the parties concerned. The Jaw imposes no limitation as to the period within which such powers may be exercised. The first contention urged by Mr. P.V. Ramdas, is, therefore, devoid of any substance. 11. The second contention of Mr. Ramdas has some force. No attempt has been made to determine the actual income with reference to various factors bearing on agriculture" Assessment has been made as if the land yields a number crop every year. Taking the evidence of witnesses into account, I hold that the Plaintiff-Respondent is entitled to mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 500/- per year pendente lite as well as future. 12. In the result, the Second Appeal is allowed in part to the aforesaid extent. But in the circumstances, there would be no order as to costs throughout. Final Result : Allowed