JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. This appeal is by the defendants against a reversing judgment. The suit was for declaration of right, title and interest, confirmation of possession and in alternative recovery of possession, declaration that the entry in the M.S.R.O.R. as well as the order passed in R.F. Case No.750 of 1977 are wrong and permanent injunction. 2. The case of the plaintiff-respondent is that the suit land originally belonged to Krushna Chandra Mishra. The settlement record of right was published in the year 1930 in his name. After his death, his widow, Smt. Dibya was in possession of the land. She used to pay rent. She died in the year 1965 leaving behind her daughter’s son, Pranakrushna Nanda, as her sole heir. The suit land was ‘Brahmator Bahal’. Pranakrushna filed R.F. Case No. 1126 of 1976. The same was allowed in his favour in the year 1978. He was in possession of the land. To press his legal necessity, he alienated the suit land to the plaintiff by means of a registered sale deed dated 6.1.1982 for a valid consideration and thereafter delivered possession. The defendants had no semblance of right, title and interest over the suit land. They obtained an order in R.F. Case No. 750 of 1977. No notice was issued to him. The order is infraction of principle of natural justice. 3. The defendants filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants is that the suit land originally belonged to Krushna Chandra Mishra. The suit land was let out on bhag basis in favour of their father, who possessed the suit land as bhag tenant continuously for more than 45 years. Krushna Chandra Mishra died leaving his widow as the only heir, who did not want any rajbhag from their father. After death of their father, they are in possession of the same. Neither the plaintiff nor his vendor was in possession of the suit land. Their names were recorded in the major settlement R.O.R. The order passed in R.F. Case No.1126 of 1976 is illegal. The O.E.A. Collector vide order dated 22.6.1976 in R.F. Case No.750 of 1977 acknowledged the defendants to be tenants and allowed them to continue as temporary lessees. Further plea of the defendants is that Pranakrushna is not the legal heir of Krushna Chandra Mishra. The O.E.A. Collector vide order dated 22.6.1976 in R.F. Case No.750 of 1977 acknowledged the defendants to be tenants and allowed them to continue as temporary lessees. Further plea of the defendants is that Pranakrushna is not the legal heir of Krushna Chandra Mishra. The plaintiff fraudulently obtained a registered sale deed from Pranakrushna. The plaintiff had no right, title and interest over the suit land. 4. On the interse pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck six issues. Both parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their cases. Learned trial court came to hold that the plaintiff had failed to establish that he is in possession of the suit land. The intermediary Krushna Chandra Mishra had not filed any application under the O.E.A. Act before the competent authority to record his name. The defendants were recognized as tenant under Sec.8(1) of the O.E.A. Act by the Tahasildar in R.F. Case No. 750 of 1977. It further held that the recording of the defendants’ status as settled raiyat in respect of the suit land in M.S.R.O.R. is wrong. The order passed by the Tahasildar is in accordance with law. He is not entitled to get relief of permanent injunction. Held so, it decreed the suit in part and declared the status of the defendants recorded in the M.S. R.O.R. is wrong. Assailing the judgment and decree of the learned trial court, the plaintiff filed T.A. No.5 of 1985 in the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Bhadrak, which was allowed. 5. The second appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law enumerated in ground nos.1 to 5 of the memorandum of appeal. The same are: “1. Whether in view of the admitted fact that the appellants are in possession of the suit land for the last 45 years as bhag tenants and are paying water rate and on vesting of the estate on 27.6.63 the appellants were accepted as tenants by the State under Section 8(1) of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act as per Ext. C dated 22.6.78 is the learned lower appellate court is justified in observing that the relationship of land lord and tenant is to be decided under the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. 2. C dated 22.6.78 is the learned lower appellate court is justified in observing that the relationship of land lord and tenant is to be decided under the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. 2. Whether the learned lower appellate court has erred in law in observing that the O.E.A. Collector has no jurisdiction to give a finding on the question in as much as the O.E.A. Collector has been vested with power under Section 8(1) of the said Act and under Section 8(1) of the O.E.A. Act any person who immediately before the date of vesting of an estate in the State Government was in possession of any holding as a tenant under an intermediary skill, on and date of vesting be deemed to be a tenant of the State Government and such person skill 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. 3. Whether in view of the concurrent findings of the courts below to the effect that the defendants are in possession of the suit land for more than 12 years as raiyats have the defendants acquired the status of occupancy raiyats and as such they are evictable from the suit land. 4. Whether the learned lower appellate court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in considering the effect of payment of water rate by the defendants which had been considered by the learned trial court which has great bearing for just decision of the case and if non-consideration of the same has materially affected the result of the case. 5. Whether in view of the admitted position as accepted by the learned lower appellate court that O.E.A. Case No.1126 of 1976 was disposed on lease principles and not under the provisions of Section 6 and 7 of O.E.A. Act does not take away the effect of the order under Section 8(1) of the said Act, if the learned lower appellate court has erred in law in not considering the effect of the order as per Ext. C in its proper perspective and if such a situation has led to a wrong conclusion.” 6. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the estate vested in the State on 27.04.1963. Pranakrushna was not in possession of the land at the time of vesting. C in its proper perspective and if such a situation has led to a wrong conclusion.” 6. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the estate vested in the State on 27.04.1963. Pranakrushna was not in possession of the land at the time of vesting. R.F. Case No.1126 of 1976 filed by Pranakrushna was not for settlement under Sec.6 & 7 of the O.E.A. Act, but under the lease principles. In the said case, no affidavit was filed by the applicant Pranakrushna. The R.I. had submitted report on 22.10.1978 (Ext.D) after disposal of case. No proclamation was made as required under law. In view of the same, the order dated 20.10.1978 passed in R.F. Case No.1126 of 1976, Ext.7, by the Tahasildar is bad in law. The plaintiff has not acquired any title by virtue of the said order. The order of the Tahasildar, Ext.7, does not take away the effect of the order under Sec.8(1) of the said Act, Ext.C. The father of the defendants was a bhag chasi under the ex-intermediary till the date of vesting and thereafter under the State till his death. He being in continuous possession of the suit land for more than 12 years became automatically an occupancy tenant under the Orissa Tenancy Act. He further submitted that the findings of the learned appellate court that the relationship of landlord and tenant is to be decided under the provisions of O.L.R. Act is not tenable in the eye of law. 7. Mrs. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the lease was granted in favour of the plaintiff in R.F. Case No. 1126 of 1976. The order had not been challenged by the defendants. The Tahasildar had jurisdiction to entertain R.F. Case No.750 of 1977 filed by the defendants. The order is without jurisdiction and a nullity. 8. Learned appellate court came to hold that the suit land vested in the State on 27.6.1963 free from all encumbrances. The suit land originally belonged to Krushna Chandra Mishra. After his death, his widow, Smt. Dibya, was in possession of the land. Pranakrushna is the son of Suryamani Debi, who was the only daughter of Krushna Chandra Mishra and Smt. Dibya. He is the only heir. The land was leased out in favour of Pranakrushna in R.F. Case No. 1126 of 1976. The defendants had not challenged the order before the competent forum. Pranakrushna is the son of Suryamani Debi, who was the only daughter of Krushna Chandra Mishra and Smt. Dibya. He is the only heir. The land was leased out in favour of Pranakrushna in R.F. Case No. 1126 of 1976. The defendants had not challenged the order before the competent forum. The Tahasildar had jurisdiction to pass the order. The order is valid and binding. Pranakrushna had acquired title by virtue of the said order. It further held that the very relationship of bhag chasi had not been established by the defendants. The defendants had not been able to show that their father or they were bhag tenants under Krushna Chandra Mishra or his wife by clear and cogent evidence. The plea of adverse possession put-forth by the defendants was negatived. 9. On a bare perusal of the order dated 21.10.1978 passed by the O.E.A. Collector in R.F. Case No.1126 of 1976 vide Ext.7, it is evident that the land was leased out in favour of Pranakrushna. The said order has not been challenged by the defendants and attained finality. In R.F. Case No. 750 of 1977, Ext. C, the O.E.A. Collector came to hold that the defendant is not the recorded baheldar, but a tenant. The settlement cannot be made in his favour under the provisions of the O.E.A. Act. Curiously it abruptly came to a conclusion that the defendant is to continue as a temporary lessee under the Government under Sec.8(1) of the O.E.A. Act as the recorded baheldars have failed to file claim petition for settlement in their favour within the stipulated time. The O.E.A. Collector dehors its jurisdiction to pass order observing that the defendants shall continue as temporary lessees. The order is nonest in the eye of law. 10. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Radhamani Dibya and others vs. Braja Mohan Biswal and others, 57 (1984) C.L.T.-1 (F.B.) held: “Section 8(1) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act makes no provision for an application. No enquiry is contemplated under this section. The section is merely declaratory of the continuity of the tenure of tenants as it was immediately before the date of vesting……” 11. Taking a cue from Radhamani Dibya and others (supra) another Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Basanti Kumari Sahu vs. State of Orissa and others, Vol.33(1991) O.J.D. 539 (Civil) (F.B.) held: “8. The section is merely declaratory of the continuity of the tenure of tenants as it was immediately before the date of vesting……” 11. Taking a cue from Radhamani Dibya and others (supra) another Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Basanti Kumari Sahu vs. State of Orissa and others, Vol.33(1991) O.J.D. 539 (Civil) (F.B.) held: “8. Having regard to the provisions contained in Section 8(1) and the meaning and interpretation given to the provision by this Court, it is clear that no proceeding is contemplated under section 8(1). Therefore, no power of adjudication of tenancy right is vested in any revenue authority. It does not envisage settlement of land belonging to the Government with tenancy right.” 12. In State of Kerala vs. M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar, AIR 1996 S.C. 906 , the apex Court held that even a void order or decision rendered between parties cannot be said to be nonexistent in all cases and in all situations. Ordinarily, such an order will, in fact be effective inter parties until it is successfully avoided or challenged in higher forum. Mere use of the word "void" is not determinative of its legal impact. The word "void" has a relative rather than an absolute meaning. It only conveys the idea that the order is invalid or illegal. It can be avoided. There are degrees of invalidity, depending upon the gravity of the infirmity, as to whether it is, fundamental or otherwise. 13. The order passed by the competent authority in R.F. Case No.1126 of 1976 has attained finality. In view of the same, Pranakrushna has acquired right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. To press his legal necessity, he alienated the suit land in favour of the plaintiff by means of a registered sale deed dated 6.1.1982 for a valid consideration and thereafter delivered possession. Thus the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit property. 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. There is neither any pleading nor evidence on record that the defendants were settled raiyat of the village. Thus, they failed to prove that they are occupancy raiyat. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 15. In the wake of aforesaid, the appeal, sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.