JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. This is a plaintiff’s appeal against an affirming judgment in a suit for declaration of occupancy raiyat and permanent injunction. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit land originally belonged to ex-intermediary of Kujanga estate. The same was full of thorny bushes and lying fallow. He was inducted as a tenant by the ex-intermediary in 1950. Possession of the land was duly delivered to him. He paid salami to the ex-landlord and used to pay rent. He constructed a house over the suit land and residing thereon. After abolition of the estate, the ex-intermediary stopped collection of rent from him. He approached the Revenue Officers to accept rent for the suit land. The Tahasildar and R.I. advised him to wait till the settlement operation begins. The settlement operation began in 1962 and was finalized in 1966. In the settlement operation, the suit land had been recorded wrongly in the name of the Forest Department. He approached the Tahasildar, Marshaghai for acceptance of rent. The Tahasildar advised him to approach the Forest Department in that matter. While the matter stood thus, the Forest Settlement Officer initiated a case against the State and ultimately passed the judgment against the State. He again approached the Tahasildar for acceptance of rent. The Tahasildar refused to accept rent. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra. 3. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The specific case of the defendants is that the suit land is a part and parcel of the Government land. The suit land and other lands have been recorded in the name of the Forest Department under khata no.7 of village Nipania. The suit is hit by Orissa Act 1 of 1948 and 8 of 1947 and is barred by law of limitation. 4. On the interse pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck as many as seven issues. To substantiate the case, the plaintiff had examined four witnesses and on his behalf fifteen documents had been exhibited. No evidence was adduced by the defendants. 5. Learned trial court came to hold that the suit land was not surveyed. The settlement operation in the area, where the land falls, started in the year 1966. To substantiate the case, the plaintiff had examined four witnesses and on his behalf fifteen documents had been exhibited. No evidence was adduced by the defendants. 5. Learned trial court came to hold that the suit land was not surveyed. The settlement operation in the area, where the land falls, started in the year 1966. As many as 34 plots having a total area of Ac.211.69 dec. had been recorded in the name of the Forest Department in the ROR, Ext.15. There was no separate note of possession in the name of any person. The assertion of the plaintiff that on the applications of the plaintiff and others, Forest Department surveyed the area, conducted spot inquiry, demarcated the land and passed order in their favour in forest settlement case no.15/70-71, Ext.11, had been negatived. On a comparison of the Amin’s report to the suit schedule land, learned trial court held that there is no sufficient evidence to link the demarcated land to the suit schedule land and the order passed by the Forest Officer is no way helpful to the plaintiff. The Forest Settlement Officer had passed the order that the forest block under khata no.7 is not fit for reservation since the same are cultivable lands. The plaintiff had not given the boundary of the suit land. In the absence of any specification, the suit land cannot be carved out. In view of the inconsistencies in Amin’s report, it negatived the plea of the plaintiff. It further held that the suit land vested in the State. The ex-landlord had not submitted ekpadia in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had not filed any rent receipt. Held so, it dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed before the learned Additional District Judge, Kendrapara in T.A. No.32 of 1991, which was eventually dismissed. 6. The second appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law enumerated in ground nos. A and B of the memorandum of appeal. The same are: “A. Whether the court below are justified in dismissing the case of the appellant on the ground that the suit schedule property is not identifiable when the plaintiff has given the details of the property at the foot of the plaint and in his evidence? A and B of the memorandum of appeal. The same are: “A. Whether the court below are justified in dismissing the case of the appellant on the ground that the suit schedule property is not identifiable when the plaintiff has given the details of the property at the foot of the plaint and in his evidence? B. Whether the lower appellate court has committed error of law by coming to the finding that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land after 1962 only on the basis of entries in the Hal ROR ?” 7. Heard Mr. L.K. Moharana, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants and Mr. R.P. Mohapatra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent nos.1 and 2. 8. Mr. Moharana, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the suit schedule property belonged to ex-intermediary. The same was lying fallow. The plaintiff was inducted as a tenant by the ex-intermediary on acceptance of rent and salami. Since the land was not surveyed and a jungle block, the amin and other officials of ex-estate authorities visited the spot, identified the land and delivered possession of the same to the plaintiff nearly 40 years ago. The plaintiff reclaimed the suit land. The final ROR was published in the name of the State wrongly. The plaintiff approached the Tahasildar, Marshaghai, defendant no.2, for acceptance of rent. But the rent was not accepted on the ground that the land has been transferred from the Revenue Department to the Forest Department. The concerned officer of the Forest Department visited the spot, conducted a survey and passed order accepting the status of the plaintiff as an occupancy raiyat. The plaintiff had given details of the suit property in the schedule of the plaint. Learned appellate court committed a manifest error in coming to a finding that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land after 1962. Thus the judgments of the courts below are vitiated. 9. Per contra, Mr. Mohapatra, learned A.G.A. for the respondent nos.1 and 2 submitted that the suit land originally belonged to ex-intermediary. The same vested in the State after coming into operation of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act (in short, “O.E.A. Act”). The ROR was published in the name of the Forest Department. The suit schedule area is unspecific. 9. Per contra, Mr. Mohapatra, learned A.G.A. for the respondent nos.1 and 2 submitted that the suit land originally belonged to ex-intermediary. The same vested in the State after coming into operation of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act (in short, “O.E.A. Act”). The ROR was published in the name of the Forest Department. The suit schedule area is unspecific. The plaintiff had failed to prove that he was an occupancy raiyat over the suit land. Thus, the suit was rightly dismissed. 10. The plaintiff had described the suit land as follows: “Village-Nipania, Khata No.7, Plot No.48/68. Area Ac.9.70 out of it middle portion Ac.1.40 Plot No.47/94 Ac.4.10 out of easternside Ac.0.07 dec. Plot No.48 Ac.34.63 dec. out of middle portion Ac.2.83 dec. Plot No.47 Ac.15.08 out of it eastern portion Ac.1.00 Plot No.51/79 Ac.11.90 out of it eastern portion Ac.1.70.” 11. The evidence on record shows that the entire area consists of Ac.211.69 dec. The plaintiff claims a part of the areas described in the schedule. Khata no.7, plot no.48/68 consists of Ac.9.70 dec. The plaintiff claims middle portion of Ac.1.40 dec. Out of total area of Ac.4.10 dec. of plot no.47/94, he claims eastern side of Ac.0.07 dec. Out of total area of Ac.34.63 dec. of plot no.48, he claims middle portion of Ac.2.83 dec. Plot no.47 is having area of Ac.15.08 dec. He claims eastern portion of Ac.1.00 dec. Similarly out of total area of Ac.11.90 dec. appertaining to plot no.51/79, he claims eastern portion of Ac.1.70 dec. 12. Order 7 Rule 3 C.P.C. postulates that where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it, and, in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers. 13. The middle portion as well as the eastern side of the plots are unspecific and vague. No boundary has been given. Thus, no effective decree can be passed. 14. The word ‘raiyat’ has been defined in Sec.5(2) of Orissa Tenancy Act. It means primarily a person who has acquired a right to hold land for the purpose of cultivating it by himself, or by members of his family or by hired servants, or with the aid of partners, and includes also the successors-in-interest or persons who have acquired such a right. It means primarily a person who has acquired a right to hold land for the purpose of cultivating it by himself, or by members of his family or by hired servants, or with the aid of partners, and includes also the successors-in-interest or persons who have acquired such a right. Sec.23(1) of the Act provides that every person who, for a period of twelve years whether wholly or partly before or after the commencement of this Act, has continuously held as a raiyat land situate in any village, whether under a lease or otherwise, shall be deemed to have become, on the expiration of that period, a settled raiyat of that village. Sec.24(1) postulates that every person who is a settled raiyat of a village within the meaning of Sec.23 of the Act shall have a right of occupancy in all land for the time being held by him as a raiyat in that village. 15. The plaintiff in his evidence stated that he was a permanent resident of Medinapur, Dist.-West Bengal. He came to Orissa 40 years back. He along with others attended Anantapur court. He applied for seven acres of land. The application was allowed. There is neither any pleading nor evidence that the plaintiff was a settled raiyat of the village. Thus no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the plaintiff is an occupancy raiyat. 16. After coming into operation of O.E.A. Act, the estate vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The ex-intermediary had not submitted any ekpadia in the name of the plaintiff. The land has been recorded in the name of the Forest Department of the Government of Orissa. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 17. In the wake of aforesaid, the appeal, sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.