JUDGMENT : A.K. RATH, J. 1. This petition challenges the order dated 20.4.2016 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantabanji in C.S No. 36 of 2008. By the said order, learned trial court rejected the application of the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 (a)(d) CPC. 2. Opposite parties 3 and 4 instituted C.S No. 36 of 2008 in the court of the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kantabanji seeking following reliefs: “(i) Declaring the settlement of suit land and preparation of ROR of New Khata No. 227/293 by the Tahasildar, Kantabanji vide order dated 4.2.1997 in Encroachment Case No. 18/96 in favour of the father of the defendant, namely, Bhajanlal Agrawal to be void and illegal; (ii) Declaring the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit land; (iii) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land; (iv) Pass a decree to recover possession in case the plaintiffs are dispossessed by the defendants during the pendency of the suit by demolishing any structure at the cost of the defendant, if any, raised by them.” 3. Pursuant to issuance of summons, defendants entered appearance and filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The specific case of the defendants is that the land has been settled in favour of their father in a proceeding under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act initiated by the Tahasildar, Kantabanji. The same has attained finality. While the matter stood thus, they filed an application on 8.4.2016 under Order 7 Rule 11 (a)(d) CPC to reject the plaint contending, inter-alia, that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Learned trial court rejected their application. 4. Heard Mr. S.K. Zafarulla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 2. 5. Mr. S.K. Zafarulla, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in a proceeding under the OPLE Act, the land has been settled by the Tahasildar, Kantabanji in favour of the father of the defendants. The order passed by the Tahasildar, Kantabanji has attained finality. Thus the suit is not maintainable. 6. In Haradhan Nag vs. Saroj Ku. Mishra (RSA No.197 of 2013 disposed of on 23.11.2016), this Court in Para-9 held as follows: “9. In Abhimanyu Jee vs. Dr. The order passed by the Tahasildar, Kantabanji has attained finality. Thus the suit is not maintainable. 6. In Haradhan Nag vs. Saroj Ku. Mishra (RSA No.197 of 2013 disposed of on 23.11.2016), this Court in Para-9 held as follows: “9. In Abhimanyu Jee vs. Dr. Gayaprasad and others, AIR 1982 Orissa 207, this Court held that the finding in the House Rent Control proceeding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendants operated as res judicata and the finding was not available to be re-adjudicated in the civil court. But then, in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. M/s. India Automobiles and Co. and others, AIR 1991 SC 884 , the apex Court observed that the decision rendered by court of limited jurisdiction, that is to say, the rent control court will not operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit relating to title notwithstanding the terms of Section 11 of the C.P.C. including Expl.VIII thereto. Taking a cue from Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra), this Court in the case of State of Orissa vs. Bhanu Mali (Dead) Nurpa Bewa and others, AIR 1996 Orissa 199 held that the decision in the case of Abhimanyu Jee (supra) must be taken to have impliedly overruled. In Bhanu Mali (Dead) Nurpa Bewa (supra), a question arose that whether the decision of the Revenue Officer in the proceeding under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act will operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and recovery of possession. This Court held that the decision of the Revenue Officer in the proceeding under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act can neither operate as res judicata nor Section 16 thereof can stand as a bar relating to the question of title in the subsequent civil suit by the plaintiffs.” (Emphasis laid) 7. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in Haradhan Nag (supra), the petition is dismissed.