JUDGMENT : D.M. Patnaik, J. - This is the plaintiff's appeal against the confirming judgments of both the Courts below dismissing the suit for declaration of title and possession. 2. The disputed land measures Ac. 0.06 decimals under Plot No. 487/6 under Khata No. 76 of village Durgapur in Uditnagar Tahasil, Rourkela. The plaintiff claims the property on the basis that she has been adversely possessing the same since the year 1 947 and by the time of filing the suit, she has prescribed the title by adverse possession. 3. Defendant No. 1, the respondent before this Court, happens to be son of Sibanarayan Singh, the latter being the brother of Kishore Chandra Singh with whom the land was settled under a Hukumnama from the Ex-Zamindar. The defendant No. 1 claims title and possession on the basis that he is the nephew of Kishore Chandra Singh. It is further his case that the defendant belongs to Scheduled Tribe whereas the plaintiff is a non-Scheduled Tribe. Since she possessed the land of a Scheduled Tribe a suo motu proceeding under Regulation 2 of 1956 was initiated by the revenue authority vide Misc. Case No. 6 of 1978 by the S.D.O., Panposh. In that revenue proceeding an order was passed against the plaintiff for eviction. She filed Revenue Appeal No. 30 of 1979 before the A.D.M., Rourkela; which was dismissed. Against that order Revenue Appeal No. 2/81 before the R.D.C. was also dismissed. The OJC No. 2320/81 filed by her was also dismissed as withdrawn. The defendant claims that the title and possession has been confirmed in his favour by the revenue authorities and therefore filing of the suit was not permissible and this has been so dealt by both the Courts below. 4. Mr. S.K.Padhi, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court to the impugned judgments of the Courts below, the Amin's report and the settlement records-of-rights and other relevant documents and submitted that the plaintiff in fact has prescribed title by adverse possession but this has not been appreciated by the Courts below. Therefore, the plaintiff has approached this Court for setting aside the judgments. Mr. B.B. Jena, counsel for the defendant-respondent has also advanced extensive argument basing on various documents and particularly, the revenue records in the above mentioned Misc. Case and the Misc. Appeal, and submitted that in the Revenue Misc. Therefore, the plaintiff has approached this Court for setting aside the judgments. Mr. B.B. Jena, counsel for the defendant-respondent has also advanced extensive argument basing on various documents and particularly, the revenue records in the above mentioned Misc. Case and the Misc. Appeal, and submitted that in the Revenue Misc. Case No. 6 of 1978 before the Revenue Officer initiated against the appellant she pleaded to have prescribed title by adverse possession, but the Court did not accept that case. The Revenue Appeal No. 30 of 1979 was filed against that order dated 8.6.1981 which was also dismissed and so also the Revenue Appeal No. 2/81 before the R.D.C. was also dismissed. Challenging those orders she filed OJC No. 2320/81 which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14.12.1989- It was further argued that the Regulation 2 of 56 being a special statute which decided finally the rights of the parties, the Civil Court Jurisdiction is expressly barred. Mr. Jena further submitted that even assuming for the sake of argument that the suit is not barred, even .on the facts of the case she failed to prove having acquired title by adverse possession because of the absence of various ingredients of adverse possession. I may dispose of the rival contentions in the following manner. 5. The plaintiff came up with a case that her husband possessed the land since 1947. Admittedly, there is not a scrap of paper to show such possession since 1947. But on the basis of the evidence of the witnesses examined from the side of the plaintiff also do not prove such possession since 1947, but all the witnesses have stated about the possession from 1966-67 onwards. I accept the evidence that she possessed the land since 1966. Misc. Case No. 6/78 under Regulation having been initiated in 1978, question of prescribing title by adverse possession did not arise. Be that as it may. even assuming that the appellant did possess the land, yet the Courts below have concurrently held that even such long possession cannot enure to the benefit of the plaintiff-appellant for acquiring a title by adverse possession. The lower appellate Court has dealt with this aspect elaborately and has given reasons that there has been no element of adverse possession for acquiring a title to the property. I agree with this finding of the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court has dealt with this aspect elaborately and has given reasons that there has been no element of adverse possession for acquiring a title to the property. I agree with this finding of the lower appellate Court. I have also seen the evidence of the witnesses for'the plaintiff and found that there is nothing in their evidence as to how the possession became adverse to the interest of the plaintiff. Admittedly, the suit is not based on title to the property. In this' context, it is necessary to examine the title of the defendants. 6. I have gone through Ext, A, the certified copy of the order dated 1 6.11.1 970 passed by the Tahasildar, Ext. A/1, the certified copy of the order dated 9.1.1971 of the Tahasildar and Ext. A/2 the report of the Revenue Inspector dated 28.2.1971. It is clearly established that the land originally belonged to the Ex-Zamindar of Nagara Estate and this land is a part of the total area Ac. 0.95 decimals was granted to Kishore Mohan Singh of Kuanrmunda under a Hukumnama. Shibnarayan Singh, the father of the petitioner filed a petition before the Tahasildar for acceptance of the land revenue in respect of the reclaimed land in his name. This estate having been abolished on 1.4.1966, the Tahasildar recorded that the land revenue was payable from 1.4.1 966 and the above documents show that the State accepted land revenue from the father of defendant No. 1. These revenue records prepared by the public officer during the course of their discharging official duty, are relevant records proving the right created by the defendant as a tenant, under the Government. They carry great presumptive value unless rebutted. Ext. B is the record- of-rights of the last settlement in respect of the land which includes the disputed land as Plot No. 39/1560. Forcible possession in favour of the plaintiff has been noted in the remarks column, but there is no mention about the date from which such forcible possession was there. Be that as it may, this hardly matters since admittedly in the Regulation Misc. Case that ultimately ended at the R.D.C. level and also thereafter in the High Court with a direction for eviction of the plaintiff. That itself proves her possession without any title. The case was initiated in the year 1 978 vide Misc. Be that as it may, this hardly matters since admittedly in the Regulation Misc. Case that ultimately ended at the R.D.C. level and also thereafter in the High Court with a direction for eviction of the plaintiff. That itself proves her possession without any title. The case was initiated in the year 1 978 vide Misc. Case No. 6 of 1978 before the S.D.O. The appeal as well as the revision arising thereof also having been dismissed the plaintiff has no case. 7. In view of my agreeing with the findings of the Courts below that the plaintiff has failed to have acquired title by adverse possession I have not felt it necessary to deal with the matter whether the civil Courts jurisdiction was a bar. The law is well settled that to establish somebody's title to the property on the basis of his having acquired title by adverse possession, Civil Court's jurisdiction is not barred. 8. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed, but without cost. Final Result : Dismissed