H.L.Agarwal, J.

1. Petitioners have filed this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the judgment (Annexure 2) of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Purnea (respondent No. 2) as also the judgment (Annexure 3) passed by the Charge Officer, Purnea (respondent No. 1) on appeal by the petitioners before the said authority against the judgment and decree of respondent No. 2, in the following circumstances :

The petitioners had filed a title suit in the Court of the Munsif, Sadar Purnea, for declaration of their title and confirmation of possession or in the alternative, for recovery of possession over the suit land, which was registered as Title Suit No. 3783 of 1964. The plaintiffs case, as made out in the said plaint, is that the disputed lands are their ancestral properties with which the defendants had no manner of concern. During the last revisional survey, a wrong entry was made in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 7 against the existing conditions, who have been recorded as Bataidars. A further prayer for declaring the petitioners as the raiyats of the suit land has also been made in the plaint.

2. During the pendency of the title suit aforesaid, Sec.109 of the Bihar Tenancy Act was replaced by a new section by the Bihar Tenancy (Amendment) Act 1970 (Act 6 of 1970) by which a bar of jurisdiction to Civil Courts was created and it was provided that Civil Court shall not entertain any application or a suit in which correctness of any entry in any such record or roll is expressly or impliedly challenged or in which determination of incidents of any tenancy is involved, and such suits or applications were to be instituted before the Collector or any Revenue Officer specially empowered by the State Government by notification in this behalf. A provision for filing an appeal was also made before the Revenue authority to be specially empowered by the State Government by notification in this behalf. In pursuance of the above amendment, the Civil Court transferred the suit of the petitioner to the Revenue Court and, as already stated above, was decided by the respondent No. 2 and on appeal by the petitioners, against the said judgment, by respondent No. 1.

3. A large number of writ applications challenging the constitutional validity of the aforesaid provisions of the Bihar Act 6 of 1970 as well as various civil revision applications against the order of the Civil Court transferring title suits to the Revenue Courts were filed in this Court. The matter was ultimately referred to a Full Bench and this Court in the case of Nand Kumar Roy V/s. State of Bihar, (1973 BBCJ 841) = (AIR 1974 Pat 164 FB) on consideration of various aspects of the amendments, struck down Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2) of the new Sec.109 of the Bihar Tenancy Act, introduced by the Bihar Act 6 of 1970, as being constitutionally invalid and expressly observed that suits pending in Civil Courts for declaration of title, confirmation of possession or recovery of possession would remain pending in Civil Courts and be triable only by them even though the entry in survey was challenged expressly or implledly.

4. In view of the declaration of this Court in the aforesaid decision, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the judgments of the Revenue authorities in the original suit as well as in the appeal, which were the result of the aforesaid amending provisions of Bihar Act 8 of 1970 i.e. under the new Sec.109 of the Bihar Tenancy Act were consequently invalid and without jurisdiction, as the suit and the appeal were entertained by the said authorities and disposed of by them under an invalid enactment and, therefore, when the said provision was itself declared unconstitutional by this Court, the jurisdiction created in respondents Nos. 2 & 1, also became ipso facto non est and the two judgments, therefore, must be held to be invalid, without jurisdiction and inoperative. There seems