JUDGMENT : K.R. Mohapatra, J. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 05.07.1993 passed by the Tahasildar-cum-OEA Collector, Pipili in OEA Case (Misc.) No.45 of 1979 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to recognize her as a tenant under Section 8(1) of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act,1951 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The case land appertains to Khata No.132, Plot No.19 and Plot No.29 to an extent of Ac.2.94 decimal which corresponds to Khata No.160, Plot Nos.63 and 56 to an extent of Ac.2.88 decimal of 1966 Settlement. In the Settlement of 1927, the case land stood recorded in favour of the Ruler of Paralakhemundi under Anabadi Khata in Mouza: Jamalpur Kothabada under Pipil Tahasil in the district of Puri. The same was a part of Parala Estate (ex-intermediary). It is the case of the petitioner that she was inducted as a tenant by the ex-intermediary in the year 1943 and continued to pay rent to the ex-intermediary till the estate vested to the State in the year 1953. After vesting, the ex-intermediary submitted Jamabandi register showing the petitioner to be in possession over the case land at the time of vesting as a tenant. Basing upon the said Jamabandi register, rent was accepted from the petitioner from 1956 to 1960 and again from 1976 to 1981 (Annexure-3 series) by the Thasildar recognizing her as a tenant. The case land was wrongly recorded in favour of Government of Odisha in the ROR published in the year 1966. Thus, the petitioner filed an application on 05.09.1979 before the Tahasildar, Pipili for correction of the record and to accept the rent from her, which was registered as OEA Case (Misc.) No.45/79. The Tahasildar, Pipili observing the formalities settled the land in favour of the petitioner vide his order dated 23.04.1980 and issued direction to receive rent from her. Accordingly, the petitioner paid rent as under Annexure-3 series. Assailing the same, one Choudhury Sachidananda Das and Kumar Biswal (opposite parties 3 and 4 herein) filed OEA Lease Appeal Case No.25/80. The petitioner raised objection to the effect that they are strangers to the case land and due to enmity between the two families, the appeal has been filed. The petitioner further raised objection with regard to maintainability of the appeal as the order impugned therein was an order under Section 8(1) of the Act. The petitioner raised objection to the effect that they are strangers to the case land and due to enmity between the two families, the appeal has been filed. The petitioner further raised objection with regard to maintainability of the appeal as the order impugned therein was an order under Section 8(1) of the Act. The Appellate Authority (Sub-Divisional Officer, Puri) without considering the objection of the petitioner set aside the same vide his order dated 30.08.1986. Thus, the petitioner filed OJC No.3078 of 1986 challenging the said order dated 30.08.1986 passed in OEA Appeal Case No.25/80. This Court considering the rival contentions of the parties remanded the matter to the Tahasildar vide order dated 09.08.1991 with the following observation:- “… In that view of the matter, though there may be some force in the contention of Mr.Padhi with regard to locus standi of the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 to assail the order of the Tahasildar in appeal as well as with regard to the alleged contention that the land has been transferred in favour of the Grama Panchayat; but the SDO being a superior revenue authority and having directed that Tahasildar to further enquire into the matter as to whether the petitioner was a tenant in respect of the disputed land under the ex-intermediary prior to vesting of the estate, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the SDO. We make it clear that the Tahasildar shall enquire into the question as to whether the petitioner was a tenant in respect of the disputed land under the ex-intermediary prior to the vesting of the estate in the year 1953. Needless to mention that in this inquiry, it would be open for the parties to lead evidence and the Tahasildar is to find out whether necessary incidence of tenancy has been established or not.” Accordingly, the Tahasildar conducted an enquiry and rejected the case of the petitioner holding that she was not a tenant under the ex-intermediary vide his Order dated 05.07.1993, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed their counter affidavit to the writ petition and contended that pursuant to the direction of this Court under Annexure-4, the Tahasildar made a detailed scrutiny of the matter and conducted a detailed enquiry. 3. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed their counter affidavit to the writ petition and contended that pursuant to the direction of this Court under Annexure-4, the Tahasildar made a detailed scrutiny of the matter and conducted a detailed enquiry. During course of enquiry, the petitioner was specifically asked to produce the following documents:- (A) Certified copy of Ekpadia submitted by the ex-intermediary before the OEA-Collector; (B) Un-registered Patta or registered Patta of ex-intermediary showing leasing out of the land to her; (C) Rent receipt of the ex-intermediary since 1943-44 to 1953; (D) Certified copy of the Zamabandi Register or Tenant’s is Ledger. However, the petitioner only produced the rent receipt No.34278 dated 06.09.1980, which was accepted pursuant to the order passed in OEA Misc. Case No.45/79 for the year 1960-61 to 1980-81. She also filed some of the rent receipts alleged to have been granted by the ex-intermediary for the years 1943-44, 1945-46 and 1952. Since those documents were not sufficient to establish the claim of the petitioner, the case land was rightly recorded in the Government Khata by opposite party No.2, the Tahasildar, Pipil. The opposite parties 1 and 2 in their counter affidavit further contended that in order to establish a tenancy under the ex-intermediary, it is highly essential to produce certified copy of the Zamabandi register of the ex-intermediary as well as the rent roll or “Asul Warriza” of the ex-intermediary showing collection of rent from the tenant. Though some rent receipts were filed no other documents could be produced by the petitioner in support of her case. Thus, the claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected. Further, the petitioner filed her application under Section 8(1) of the Act seeking declaration that she was a tenant under the ex-intermediary, which is beyond the purview of Section 8(1) of the Act. The only course open for the petitioner is to seek for a declaration under the common law forum. The Zamabandi register available in the office of the Tahasildar disclosed that there was an entry in the name of the petitioner in the remark column of the said register against Anabadi Khata No.132. But, the same was not a conclusive proof of evidence to come to the conclusion that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant under the ex-intermediary, when other required documents to establish the claim of tenancy was not available for consideration. But, the same was not a conclusive proof of evidence to come to the conclusion that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant under the ex-intermediary, when other required documents to establish the claim of tenancy was not available for consideration. Hence, they contended that the impugned order needs no interference and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Opposite parties 3 and 4 filed their counter affidavit stating that they are inhabitants of Dandamakundapur and beneficiary of the case land, which is a tank. People of the villages, namely, Borogarh, Kulasekhar Patna, Mali Barahi, Abalpur and Mangarajpur of Dandamukundapur Gramapanchayat have been utilizing the source of the tank for bathing purpose as well as for irrigating their betel orchards from which they earn their livelihood. The petitioner at no point of time was in possession over the case land. After vesting of the Estate, the case land was transferred to Dandamukundapur Gramapanchayat and since then it is being managed by the Gramapancayat as well as public of the aforesaid villages. In view of the nature of the land it could not have been settled in favour of any individual. After being taken over by the Gramapanchayat, the same is being leased out to different persons for the purpose of Pisciculture since 1957-58. The husband of the petitioner, namely, Chema Jena, who was also a Ward member of the Gramapanchayat, was fully aware of the said fact. Said Chema Jena had taken the tank on lease basis in the year 1965-66 and also in other subsequent years for Pisciculture. Though the ROR has already been published since 1966 and has been recorded in the name of the Government in Rakhit Anabadi status with Kissam ‘Jalasaya’, the petitioner being fully aware of the said fact did not assail the same. Said Chema Jena in order to grab the case land manufactured some rent receipts and lodged claim in respect of the case land to declare her tenancy which was rightly rejected by the O.E.A. Collector-cum-Tahasildar, Pipili. As the Tahasildar initially declared the petitioner as tenant in respect of the case land and accepted the rent from her, they (the villagers) had challenged the same in appeal bearing O.E.A. Lease Appeal No.25 of 1980 and the appellate Court, i.e., S.D.O.-cum-appellate authority remanded the matter to the Tahasildar for fresh consideration. As the Tahasildar initially declared the petitioner as tenant in respect of the case land and accepted the rent from her, they (the villagers) had challenged the same in appeal bearing O.E.A. Lease Appeal No.25 of 1980 and the appellate Court, i.e., S.D.O.-cum-appellate authority remanded the matter to the Tahasildar for fresh consideration. Assailing the same, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition bearing O.J.C. No.3078 of 1986 before this Court. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the materials on record, this Court was not inclined to interfere with the direction of the S.D.O.-cum-appellate authority and reiterated to implement the direction of the SDO by directing the Tahasildar to make an enquiry. The Tahasildar, thereafter, conducted an enquiry pursuant to the direction of this Court as well as the SDO and rightly rejected the application of the petitioner under Annexure-1, which needs no interference. 5. Heard Mr.Banamali Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Kishore Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for opposite parties 1 and 2 and Mr.Pradipta Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite parties 3 and 4. Learned counsel for the parties made submissions supporting their respective claims in the writ petition as well as counter affidavits. 6. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and on scrutiny of the records, it is found that the case land was recorded in the name of the Ruler of Parlakhemundi in 1927 Settlement. The same was vested in the State in the year 1953. Petitioner, for the first time in the year 1979, made an application, i.e. O.E.A. Case (Misc.) No.45/79 to the Tahasildar, Pipili with a prayer to recognize her as a tenant and accept rent from her. The history of the case, as has been described above, is not disputed by any of the parties; hence the same needs no reiteration. Pursuant to the direction of this Court in O.J.C. No.3078 of 1986 under Annexure-4, the Tahasildar made an enquiry and directed the parties to lead evidence. In order to test the veracity of the case, the Tahasildar directed the petitioner to produce four documents as stated herein above at paragraph-3. Though the petitioner could manage to produce some rent receipts for the period, i.e., 1943-44, 1945, 1946 and 1952, no other document could be produced before him (the Tahasildar) in support of her case. In order to test the veracity of the case, the Tahasildar directed the petitioner to produce four documents as stated herein above at paragraph-3. Though the petitioner could manage to produce some rent receipts for the period, i.e., 1943-44, 1945, 1946 and 1952, no other document could be produced before him (the Tahasildar) in support of her case. The Zamabandi register available in the office of the Tahasildar, Pipili discloses that there is an entry of the name of the petitioner in the remark column in respect of Khata No.132 (disputed Khata). Except the same, no other document is available on record to establish the claim of the petitioner. On the basis of the entry made in the remark column of the Zamabandi register, it will not be safe to accept the petitioner as a tenant under the ex-intermediary in respect of the case land. There is no entry of payment of rent by the petitioner in respect of the case land. No record is available showing acceptance of rent by the ex-intermediary in the relevant case record. Though the petitioner claims that the ex-intermediary submitted the tenant ledger in her favour before the Tahasildar at the time of vesting of the Estate, she has not disclosed anything about the Hatpatta or lease deed etc. Neither any Hatpatta nor any lease deed in respect of the case land is available on record nor certified copy of the same was produced by the petitioner though the same was specifically directed by the Tahasildar to be produced by the petitioner. A Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Radhamani Dibya and others Vs. Braja Mohan Biswal and others, reported in 57 (1984) CLT 1, at paragraph-20 held as under:- “20. A Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Radhamani Dibya and others Vs. Braja Mohan Biswal and others, reported in 57 (1984) CLT 1, at paragraph-20 held as under:- “20. xx xx xx Under Section 8(1) of the O. E. A. Act any person who immediately before the date of the vesting of an estate in the State Government was in possession of any 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 in the same rights and subject to the same restrictions and liabilities as he was entitled or subject to immediately before the date of vesting….” Thus, in order to establish her claim, the petitioner has to prove that she was in possession over the case land as a tenant under the ex-intermediary on the date of vesting. Except filing of some rent receipts, which is highly doubtful, the petitioner has not produced any document to establish her possession over the case land as a tenant. The rent receipts produced as under Annexure-3 series has no relevance for the purpose of adjudication of the case in view of the fact that the rent for the years 1956 to 1960 and 1976 to 1981 under Annexure-3 series were accepted on one date, i.e., 06.09.1980, pursuant to the direction of the Tahasildar, Puri recognizing the petitioner as a tenant. Such order has been set aside and is no more in vogue. Hence, the claim of the petitioner to the effect that the Government has accepted rent from her after the vesting recognizing her as a tenant is baseless. As held hereinbefore, the entry of the name of the petitioner in the remark column of the Zamabandi register cannot be conclusive proof of fact that the petitioner is a tenant. Further, though the claim of the petitioner that she is in possession over the case land, the same is not believable for the reason that the case land is a tank and is being leased out to different persons annually for Pisciculture. In a decision of this Court in the case of Chandra Sekhar Rath Vs. Further, though the claim of the petitioner that she is in possession over the case land, the same is not believable for the reason that the case land is a tank and is being leased out to different persons annually for Pisciculture. In a decision of this Court in the case of Chandra Sekhar Rath Vs. Collector, Dhenkanal, reported in 1988 (II) OLR 572, this Court relying upon the case of Ramamani Dibya (supra) categorically came to the conclusion that a person seeking declaration/recognization as a tenant under the ex-intermediary can only move the common law forum, i.e., Civil Courts having competent jurisdiction for redressal. Section 39 of the Act would not be a bar for the same. Since the case at hand is in the nature of a declaration of tenancy right, it can only be adjudicated by the Civil Courts and not by the Tahasildar under the provisions of the Act. The Tahasildar only makes an enquiry for acceptance of rent from a person who was a tenant under the ex-intermediary on the date of vesting. The order passed by him (the Tahasildar) is administrative in nature. Further, the case land admittedly vested in the Government since 1953. The petitioner in order to establish her tenancy right over the case land approached the Tahasildar, Pipili for the first time only in the year 1979, which is hopelessly delayed. The petitioner in this case wants to take advantage of her own laches which is not permissible under law. 7. In that view of the matter, the impugned order needs no interference and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed being devoid of any merit.