JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - Plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court. They had filed the suit for declaration of right, title, and possession over the suit lands which includes a tank and for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the said tank. Learned Sub-Judge, Aska decreed the suit in part and possession of the plaintiffs was declared only for the limited purpose of irrigation and prayer for declaration of title and permanent injunction were refused. Appeal filed by the plaintiffs before the learned Additional District Judge, Ganjam was partly allowed and title of the plaintiffs over a portion of the suit tank appertaining to Survey Nos. 9/103 of Asinapur and Survey Nos. 1023, 1022/2, 1022/3 and 1020 of Sunapalli was declared. However, claim of the plaintiffs over Survey No. 30 was not allowed. Challenging that portion of the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court the plaintiffs have filed the present appeal. 2. Case of the plaintiffs is that the suit tank namely "Nuabandha" in village Asinapur is in possession of the plaintiffs since the time of their fore-fathers. The said village was a pre-settlement whole-inam village. The fore-fathers of the plaintiffs had acquired agricultural lands to the tune of near about 120 acres and for the purpose of irrigation the suit tank was excavated by the great grand-father of the plaintiffs. The tank adjoins to boundary of Sunapalli village and about six acres of land of Asinapur and four acres of land of Sunapalli village of the plaintiffs are irrigated. In the settlement operation between 1948 to 1952 a portion of the tank was recorded in Paramboke khata though it is not an agricultural land. The jnam of village Asinapur was abolished in the year 1954 after coming into force of the Estate Abolition Act and a portion of the suit tank got vested with the State Government. The total extent of tank is Ac. 2.65 cents out of which Ac. 1.60 cents are paramboke lands and Ac. 1.02 cents are zeraiti land. The said Ac. 1.02 cents zaraiti land is a portion of Survey No. 9/103 of Asinapur village and portions of Survey No. 1023, 1022/2, 1022/3 and 1020 are in village Sunapalli. The total extent of tank is Ac. 2.65 cents out of which Ac. 1.60 cents are paramboke lands and Ac. 1.02 cents are zeraiti land. The said Ac. 1.02 cents zaraiti land is a portion of Survey No. 9/103 of Asinapur village and portions of Survey No. 1023, 1022/2, 1022/3 and 1020 are in village Sunapalli. Further case of the plaintiffs is that the lands comprising in Survey No. 30 measuring 1.60 cents has been recorded as Nuabandha which has been amalgamated along with 1.02 cents zeraiti lands. Case of the plaintiffs is that them came to know that B.D.O., Kabisuryanagar had leased out the said tank on 20.5.81 to the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 for the purpose of pisciculture and the said defendants were declaring to rear fish in the said tank. Coming to know about the aforesaid fact the suit was filed for the reliefs claimed. 3. Defendants in their written statement stated that the village Asinapur is a whole inam village vested with the State on 1.7.1954. Prior to that neither the plaintiffs nor their ancestors were in possession of the suit land. After vesting they retained only agricultural lands and homestead lands. The State of Orissa after such vesting transferred the tank to the Gram Panchayat of Gangapur in the year 1962 and since then the Gram Panchayat is in possession and management of the tank. The plaintiff No. 1 was the Sarpanch of the said Panchayat and while acting as such he had given a list of public properties of Gram Panchayat in which the present tank has been included. Therefore, there is a clear admission on the part of the plaintiff No. 1 that the suit tank belongs to the Panchayat and accordingly it is pleaded in the written statement that the plaintiffs have no right or title over the same. 4. On the pleadings of the parties as stated above, the learned Sub-Judge framed six issues. While answering issue No. 2 the learned Sub-Judge came to conclusion that the evidence adduced indicates that the lands which have been mixed up with Survey. No. 30 have all been shown as rayati lands and there is not hard and fast rule that the nature of the rayati land will be changed in case a tank over the rayati lands is excavated. No. 30 have all been shown as rayati lands and there is not hard and fast rule that the nature of the rayati land will be changed in case a tank over the rayati lands is excavated. While answering issue No. 3 the learned Sub-Judge held that admittedly Nalu Ghai is covered in Survey No. 30 and the plaintiffs are in possession of Nalu Ghai since their fore-fathers. While answering issue No. 4, learned Sub-Judge held that claim of title by adverse possession is not acceptable and the plaintiffs are to be treated as encroachers. On the above findings, the learned Sub-Judge declined to allow the prayer for declaration of right, title and interest or permanent injunction, but decreed the suit declaring possession of the plaintiffs over the tank for the limited purpose of irrigation. The lower appellants Court on consideration of the evidence found that a part of the suit tank is covered by rayati lands appertaining to Survey plot Nos. 1023, 1022/2, 1022/3 and 1020 of village Sunapalli and Survey No. 9/103 of Asinapur under occupation of the plaintiffs and accordingly declared their title in respect of the same. So far as other part of Survey No. 30 is concerned, the lower appellate Court held that the same having been recorded as paramboke and in view of the admission made in the plaint, the relief for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of said survey number cannot be allowed. 5. At the time of admission of this appeal, this Court formulated the following substantial questions of law to be adjudicated. "(1) For that the tank being one and the finding being that the suit tank stands both on rayati lands as well as paramboke land and the further finding being that the plaintiffs and their ancestors were and are in possession of the said tank long before the date of vesting, the learned Courts below have erred in law in holding that the plaintiffs have no title in the portion of the tank standing on survey No. 30 in village Asinapur. (2) For that the ancestors of the plaintiffs having excavated the tank and being in possession since 1903 the learned counts below have erred in law in not holding that the plaintiffs have acquired title by adverse possession in respect of Survey No. 30 of village Asinapur. (2) For that the ancestors of the plaintiffs having excavated the tank and being in possession since 1903 the learned counts below have erred in law in not holding that the plaintiffs have acquired title by adverse possession in respect of Survey No. 30 of village Asinapur. (3) For that, u/s 6(1) and its explanation of the Madras Estate Lands Act, 1908 the plaintiffs have acquired right of occupancy in respect of survey No. 30 of village Asinapur as such the learned Courts below have erred in law in refusing declaration of title of the plaintiffs in respect of survey No. 30. (4) For that survey No. 30 on which a portion of the tank stands is in the centre of the tank and the rayati lands are all around it as such the decision of the learned lower appellate Court directing the plaintiffs to carve out the rayati lands by partition is wrong in law and ought to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants referring to the substantial questions of law on which the appeal had been admitted submits that there is no dispute that the suit tank is one and part of it has been held to be rayati and therefore, other part can never be paramboke so as to vest in the State Government. He also submitted that even accepting findings of the Courts below that other part of the suit tank had been recorded under paramboke khata and vested in the State Government, the plaintiffs having remained in possession of the same with the knowledge of the State for more than statutory period, have acquired title by adverse possession. The other ground taken by the learned counsel is that u/s 6(1) of the Madras Estate Lands Act, 1908, the plaintiffs have acquired occupancy right in respect of the said survey No. 30. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the plaintiffs having admitted survey No. 30 to be paramboke, they cannot take a ground in this Court to treat the same as rayati land. On the question of adverse possession also the learned counsel for the State submits that even accepting findings of both the Courts below with regard to possession, the statutory period having not been covered the question of declaration of title in favour of the plaintiffs by way of adverse possession will not arise. 7. On the question of adverse possession also the learned counsel for the State submits that even accepting findings of both the Courts below with regard to possession, the statutory period having not been covered the question of declaration of title in favour of the plaintiffs by way of adverse possession will not arise. 7. In the light of the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, ! feel it appropriate to refer to some of the pleadings in the plaint. Though in course of argument, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that Nuabandha and Nalu Ghai are different tanks, it is admitted in para - 1 of the plaint that the tank namely Nuabandha is also locally known as Nalu Ghai of village Asinapur. In view of admission in the plaint it is no more open for the learned counsel for the appellant to advance an argument that Nuabandha and Nalu Ghai are two separate tanks. In paras 3 and 4 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have stated that the settlement operations took place sometime between 1948 and 1952 and the survey No. 30 was recorded in paramboke khata. The village Asinapur was abolished in the year 1953 and after abolition the entire village including a portion of the present tank vested in the State of Orissa. It is stated in the plaint that the extent of suit tank is Ac. 2.65 cents out of which Ac. 1.61 cents are paramboke in nature and Ac. 1.02 cents are zeraiti land. Plaintiff No. 1 in his evidence also has admitted that eight varanas out of the total land are "Abadjogya Anabadi". In view of such pleadings in the plaint and the evidence of the plaintiff No. 1, the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted. The lower appellate Court, I find, was correct in holding that survey Nos. 1023, 1022/2, 1022/3 and 1020 of village Sunapalli and survey No. 9/103 of village Asinapur are only rayati lands which covered part of the suit tank and therefore, could not have vested in the State Government. The lower appellate Court was therefore, right in declaring title of the plaintiffs over the said portion of the tank. 1023, 1022/2, 1022/3 and 1020 of village Sunapalli and survey No. 9/103 of village Asinapur are only rayati lands which covered part of the suit tank and therefore, could not have vested in the State Government. The lower appellate Court was therefore, right in declaring title of the plaintiffs over the said portion of the tank. So far as survey No. 30 is concerned, there is clear admission on the part of the plaintiffs and evidence on record to show that it had been recorded as paramboke and therefore, vested on the State Government. 8. Coming to the next question of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to adverse possession, admittedly this portion of the suit land got vested on the State Government in the year 1954 and the suit was filed in the year 1981. Therefore, the plaintiffs had not remained in possession of survey No. 30 for more than 30 years by the time suit was filed and therefore, prayer for declaration of plaintiffs title by way of adverse possession cannot be entertained. So far as Section 6(1) of the Madras Estate Lands Act, 1908 is concerned, in view of the above finding that the survey No. 30 was recorded as paramboke, mere possession of the plaintiffs over the same will not entitle them to be declared as occupancy rayats. 9. In view of the discussions made above, I, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal and the same stands dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed