JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - Plaintiffs the Appellant against an affirming judgment in a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession or in the alternative for recovery of possession and for permanent injunction against the Defendant. 2. The suit land measures 4.66 acres appertaining to plot Nos. 1808, 1809, 1810 and 1811 and plot No. 1916 of Khata No. 9 in village Sathiabatia in the district of Dhenkanal. According to the plaint case, the suit land was a part of the state belonging to the Deity Jayagopal Jew under the management and control of Dhenkanal Devottar. In 1951, the Plaintiff was inducted as a Sanja tenant and since then he is in continuing cultivating possession of the suit land after making substantial improvement to the same. In 1963, the Plaintiff made an application before the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowment u/s 19 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act for taking the land on permanent lease basis and the said application was registered as O.P. Case No. 77 of 1962.63. The Commissioner in that proceeding passed an order on 9-2-1963 sanctioning permanent lease of the suit land in favour of the Plaintiff on his paying Rs. 450/- as Salami as well as Sanja of 20 parties of paddy per year, as would appear from the order of the Commissioner (Ext. 3). On 18-3-1974, under the blanket notification issued under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, the estate in question vested in the State of Orissa. Since, the Plaintiff was a tenant prior to [be date of vesting, Plaintiff claimed to be a tenant under the State u/s 8(1) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. In 1975, the Plaintiff filed an application before, the Tahasildar, Dhenkanal for conferring raiyati status on him and the Tahasildar restrained the Devottar Officer not to interfere with the possession of the Plaintiff over the land in question. Notwithstanding the aforesaid restraint order Defendant No. 2 illegally inducted Defendants 3 to 13 as tenants in respect of the suit land and at the instigation of Defendant No. 2, these Defendants 3 to 13 threatened to dispossess the Plaintiff, whereupon the Plaintiff has filed the present suit. 3. Defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit and filed a joint written statement. There has been no appearance on behalf of Defendants 3 to 13. 3. Defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit and filed a joint written statement. There has been no appearance on behalf of Defendants 3 to 13. It is the plea of Defendants 1 and 2 in the written statement that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction since the suit is barred under the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act as well as the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. It has been further pleaded that no right bad accrued in favour of the Plaintiff by virtue of Ext. 3 since the order was a conditional one and the conditions are not being complied with nor has there been and execution of the lease deed. According to the defence case the status of the Plaintiff is that of a temporary Sanja tenant under the Deity and notwithstanding the vesting notification, the land must be deemed to have been settled in favour of the Deity. 4. On these pleadings the trial court framed as many as 8 issues. Under issue No. 5, namely whether the Plaintiff has acquired any right of permanent tenancy or occupancy over the suit land it was found that the Plaintiff being a temporary leases could not acquire the right of permanent tenancy even though he might be in possession former than twelve years. It was further found that the order of the Endowment Commissioner under Ext. 3 was not a lease, but an order sanctioning lease. The trial court further found that the Plaintiff's continuance in possession on the basis of payment of Sanja could not counter any title on the Plaintiff. Under issues Nos. 1, 3 and 4, namely whether the suit is maintainable or not and whether the suit is hit by the provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act and the Orissa Land Reforms Act, the trial court held that the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred u/s 39 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act and the right of the Plaintiff could not be adjudicated in the civil court. It was also held that the suit was hit by the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. Under issues Nos. 6 and 7, the trial court did not embark upon an inquiry and did not give any finding. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. On appeal, all these findings of the trial court have been affirmed by the lower appellate court. 5. Mr. Under issues Nos. 6 and 7, the trial court did not embark upon an inquiry and did not give any finding. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. On appeal, all these findings of the trial court have been affirmed by the lower appellate court. 5. Mr. Mohanty for the Appellant contends that the conclusion of the courts below that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of Section 39 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act and Section 67 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act is unsustainable in the eye of law and on the admitted case of the parties, the Plaintiff has the indefeasible right and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be taken away by a misconceived application of the ex-intermediary under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act and accordingly, the Plaintiff's suit must be decreed. 6. Mr. P.K. Misra, the learned Counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand contends that since an application by the ex-intermediary is pending before the Estate Abolition Collector and the relief sought for by the Plaintiff is essentially a dispute between the landlord and tenant, the suit is barred both u/s 39 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act as well as u/s 67 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, and therefore, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the lis between the parties. 7. The correctness of the rival submissions depends upon the pleadings of the parties as well as the interpretation of Section 39 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act and Section 67 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. Three questions require to be answered in this appeal: (i) In view of the admitted position, has the Plaintiff any right over the land? (ii) Whether the Plaintiff can enforce his right in a Civil Court or the Civil Court's jurisdiction is barred u/s 39 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act merely because the ex-intermediary has filed an application u/s 7 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act? and (iii) Whether the suit can be said to be barred u/s 67 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, as the relief claimed in the suit can be claimed under the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act? 8. and (iii) Whether the suit can be said to be barred u/s 67 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, as the relief claimed in the suit can be claimed under the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act? 8. Coming to the first question, the Plaintiff claimed a right over the land in question on the basis of the order of the Endowment Commissioner as wen as on the basis that he is continuing ass tenant over the land in question at least since 1951. The Defendants in their written statement also have admitted that the Plaintiff is a 'Sanja' tenant in respect of the land in question. The finding of both the courts below is that the Plaintiff is in possession of the land in question on payment of Sanja for more than twelve years and was in possession before the vesting of the intermediary estate. A person who holds land under another on payment of rent for the land to the other is 'tenant' u/s 3(23) of the Orissa Tenancy Act. The word "rent" is defined u/s 3(16) of the Orissa Tenancy Act, to mean "whatever is lawfully pay able or deliverable in money or kind by a tenant to his landlord on account of the use or occupation of the land held by the tenant". u/s 8(1) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, a person who immediately before the date of vesting of an estate in the State Government was in possession of a holding as a tenant under an intermediary shall on and from the date of vesting be deemed to be a tenant of the State Government and such person shall hold the land under the same' rights and subject to the same restrictions and liabilities as he was entitled and subject to immediately before the date of vesting. The settlement contemplated by Section 8(1) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act is a deemed settlement which takes place immediately the vesting takes place. As admittedly the Plaintiff was a tenant under the Deity prior to the vesting, on the date of vesting he would be deemed to be a tenant under the State. Such a declaration cannot be given by the Collector under the Estates Abolition Act and it is only the Civil Court which is the proper authority to decide such claim. As admittedly the Plaintiff was a tenant under the Deity prior to the vesting, on the date of vesting he would be deemed to be a tenant under the State. Such a declaration cannot be given by the Collector under the Estates Abolition Act and it is only the Civil Court which is the proper authority to decide such claim. For declaration of such right Section 39 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act cannot be held to be a bar, In fact in the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Radhamani Dibya and Others Vs. Braja Mohan Biswal and Others, after analysing the different provisions of the Orissa Tenancy Act and the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, this Court has held that a tenant under an ex-intermediary prior to vesting becomes a tenant under the State by virtue of the deeming provision contained in Section 8(1) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act and the section is merely declaratory of the continuity of the tenure of the tenant as it was immediately before the date of vesting. In this view of the matter and on the admitted position as web as the finding of the two courts below that the Plaintiff was a tenant under the ex-intermediary on the date of vesting, he must be held to be continuing as a tenant under the State and for declaration of such right the Civil Court's jurisdiction cannot be held to be barred u/s 39 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. The conclusion of the two courts below on this score must, therefore, he held to be not sustainable in law. It would not be out of place to note that though no lease deed has been executed, yet the Endowment Commissioner passed an order under Annexure-3 after making a thorough inquiry into the matter and sanctioned a permanent lease in favour of the Plaintiff on certain terms and conditions part of which has been fulfilled by the Plaintiff. It is true that an application has been filed by the ex-intermediary under Sections 6 and 7 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. It is true that an application has been filed by the ex-intermediary under Sections 6 and 7 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. But on the admitted case, namely that the Plaintiff was in possession of the land in question a s a tenant prior to and on the date of vesting, the application by the ex-intermediary for settlement would not be maintainable under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, since to attract Section 7, the precondition is that the land in question must be in has possession of the intermediary. Therefore, on the basis of such an application which on the admitted facts is not maintainable, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be said to have been barred. 9. So far as the ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Court u/s 67 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act is concerned, 1 find that the same also has no application. u/s 67 the Civil Court's jurisdiction to try and decide any suit or proceeding is barred so far as it relates to any matter which any officer or other competent authority is empowered by or under the Act to decide. On and from the date of vesting of the intermediary estate, the Plaintiff does not claim any right under the intermediary. In other words, the rights of the intermediary stand extinguished on the date of the vesting notification and Plaintiff who was a tenant under the ex-intermediary becomes a tenant under the State by virtue of the deeming provision contained in Section 8(1) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. There is, therefore, no dispute as to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the Plaintiff and the ex-intermediary and in that view of the matter, the question of application of Section 67 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act does not arise. In my opinion, the two courts below erred in law to hold that the rights claimed by the Plaintiff could be declared by an authority under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, there by ousting the jurisdiction of the Civil Court u/s 67 of the said Act. On an analysis of the pleadings of the parties and the reliefs which the Plaintiff seeks, lam of the opinion that Section 67 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act has no application. On an analysis of the pleadings of the parties and the reliefs which the Plaintiff seeks, lam of the opinion that Section 67 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act has no application. The conclusion of the two courts below must accordingly be held to be illegal on this score and is hereby set aside. 10. So tar as the rights of the Plaintiff are concerned, as has been stated earlier, the Plaintiff is admittedly a tenant within the meaning of Section 3(23) of the Orissa Tenancy Act prior to the vesting of the estate. Since he was in possession of the holding as a tenant prior to the vesting, on vesting he continues to be a tenant under the State and his such right as a tenant cannot be taken away in any manner and, therefore, he was entitled for the reliefs of declaration as also injunction against the Defendants not to interfere with his possession. 11. In the net result, therefore, disagreeing with the conclusions of the two courts below, I would hold that the Civil Court's jurisdiction is not barred either under the provisions of Section 39 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act or u/s 67 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. The Plaintiff continues to be a tenant under the State on and from the date of vesting by virtue of Section 8(1) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act and his right to that extent is declared. The Defendants are injuncted from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiff in any manner. The Second Appeal is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. Appeal allowed. Final Result : Allowed