JUDGMENT : R.C. Patnaik, J. - This batch of writ application has been filed by successors of former Guntias of the ex-State of Gangpur who were in enjoyment of certain bhogra lands. 'It is alleged that anabadi lands were converted by them into agricultural land and/or otherwise put to use. Though they were entitled to Nayabadi pattas, the property was recorded in the settlement record under Bhogra khata. They had water reservoirs and/or tanks dugged for their own use and enjoyment. Community had no right whatsoever therein. 2. Orissa Merged Territories (Village Offices Abolition) Act, 1963 received the assent of the President on May 23, 1963 and published in the Gazette on 4-6-1963. Section 5 of the said Act, as it stood originally, provided for settlement of Bhogra lands with rights of occupancy with the bolder of the village office or with him and all those other persons, if any, who may be in the enjoyment of the hind or any part thereof as his co-sharer or as tenant 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. Sub-section (2) of Section provided the extent of reservation that may be made in favour of the Grama Sasan within whose limits the land is situate. Under the provisions of the Act, Bhogra lands were settled with the Petitioners by Orissa Act 33 of 1976 which was assented to by the resident on 29-7-1976. A proviso was added to Sub-section (1) of Section 5 which prohibited settlement of water reservoir known as tank, munda, bandha, kata or by any other name whatsoever which formed part of such bhogra land and which was being used for the purpose of irrigation or for any communal purpose, with the holder of the office or with any other person, as aforesaid. It also added Section 5-B, which provided for divesting of water reservoir already settled notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or .~other authority and directed vesting of such reservoir absolutely in the . State free from all encumbrances. The provision contained in Section 5-B is assailed as unconstitutional on the ground that the provision was prospective in operation and Section 5B has retrospective operation. State free from all encumbrances. The provision contained in Section 5-B is assailed as unconstitutional on the ground that the provision was prospective in operation and Section 5B has retrospective operation. There is no substance in the contention that the provision contained in Section 5(1) as inserted by Orissa Act 33 of 1976 is invalid for the reason that it unsettled settlements already made without removing the lacuna. It is worthwhile to note that Section 5(1), as it stood originally, contained no provision putting an embargo on settlement of reservoir which formed a part of bhogra land and which was being used for the purpose of irrigation or for any communal purpose with the holder of the village office or with any other person as specified in Sub-section (1). Prohibition was introduced by the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 5 by the Orissa Merged Territories (Village Offices, Abolition) Amendment Act, 1976 (Act 33 of 1976). Section 2 thereof provided that in Section 5 of the Merged Territories (Village Offices Abolition Act), 1963 after Sub-ection (1) the following proviso shall be and shall be deemed always to have been inserted. Hence, the said proviso has retrospective effect as if it was a part of the Act from the inception. The result was that no reservoir used for the purpose of irrigation or for any communal purpose could be settled with the holder of village office, or with any other personas specified in Sub-section (1). Having given retrospective effect to the proviso, it was competent for the legislature to declare that any settlement made of reservoir was no effect notwithstanding any judgment, decree, or order of any Court, Tribunal or other authority. Challenge to the constitutionality would also fail on other ground, namely, bhogra lands were held by office-holders in lieu of service and on the abolition of office, lands reverted to the State and vested in it absolutely free from all encumbrances. The office-holders had otherwise no right but for the settlement that ensued u/s 5. The nature and the extent of settlement would have depended upon the discretion of the State because the State was under no obligation but for Section 5, which provides for settlement in the manner and to the extent stated therein. Challenge to Orissa Act 33 of 1976 is, therefore, without any force. 3. The nature and the extent of settlement would have depended upon the discretion of the State because the State was under no obligation but for Section 5, which provides for settlement in the manner and to the extent stated therein. Challenge to Orissa Act 33 of 1976 is, therefore, without any force. 3. As regards the second submission namely, no provision has been made for determining if the reservoir was used for irrigation and communal purposes and no provision for appeal has been provided. None are of the view that when steps are taken for divesting of water reservoirs already settled, the holder of the office can raise objection that the reservoir diel not come within the purview of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 5 and if objection is raised, the prescribed authority has to determine the said question and any decision given being decision under the Act would be appealable and the appellate order would be revisable as provided in Section 13 of the Act. 4. In the result, we see no force in any of the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioners. We accordingly dismiss the writ applications. There would be no order as to costs. A.K. Padhi, J. 5. I agree. Applications dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed