Sec. 37 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 bars Civil Courts from entertaining suits to vary or set aside decisions of the consolidation authorities.

Chaudhary Sia Saran Sinha, J.

1. Plaintiffs are the appellants in this Second Appeal which is directed against a judgment of reversal.

2. There is a plot of land in mauza Medini Bigha in the district of Patna. It appertains to plot No. 60, khata No. 286 and tauzi No. 13230. Its area is one bigha. 12 kathas of land of this plot in the western side is the land in dispute. According to the plaintiffs father of the plaintiffs took settlement of the one bigha of land of plot No. 60 from the ex-inter mediary, Baiju Lal Nakphopha, by virtue of a Hukumnama dated 14-6-1945. He came in possession thereof and is paying rent. The plaintiffs planted trees thereon and constructed a house. Under the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act there was a consolidation proceeding in respect of this plot before the Revenue authorities. The defendants claimed to have purchased the suit land by virtue of a registered sale deed as 6.2.1953 (Exhibit-B/1) for a valuable consideration. It was executed by one Lakhi Dass. The vendor Lakhi Dass alleged to have taken settlement of this land from one Baldeo Lal Nakphopha, grandfather of the settler of the plaintiffs, by means of a Hukumnama (Exhibit-H) in the year 1321 fasli. The defendants too claimed possession over the suit land, to have planted trees thereon and to have constructed a house. Both the parties raised their claims and counter-claims before the Revenue authorities in the Consolidation proceeding. The dispute was decided in favour of the defendants and the names of the defendants were recorded in respect of the suit land in the said consolidation proceeding. When, by virtue of the entries in the consolidation proceeding, the defendants began to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs instituted the instant suit which was contested by the defendants.

3. The trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit negativing the contention raised on behalf of the defendants as to the bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Courts under Sec.37 of the Act. It held that the act of the Chakbandi Officer recording the suit property in the record of rights in the name of the defendants had the effect of creating title of defendants and extinguishing the title of the plaintiffs and, therefore, Sec.37 of the Act was no bar to the suit. The defendants carried the matter in appeal. The lower appellate Court held that the judgment and decree passed by the Court below in favour of the plaintiffs in variation with the decision of the consolidation authorities was a nullity, without jurisdiction and against the law. The suit was, therefore, dismissed after allowing the appeal. The plaintiffs have now come up in Second Appeal before this Court.

4. Two substantial questions of law framed by this Court, while admitting this Second Appeal, may be seen in Order No. 4 dated 30.7.1981. They are these:

(1) Whether Sec.37 of the Act is a bar to the maintainability of the suit giving rise to this appeal and

(2) Whether the Civil Court can adjudicate upon the title of the parties and give its declaration in favour of the person whose title and interest were not recognized by the authorities under the Act?

Since point No. 2 follows as a corollary to point No. 1, the sole substantial question of law involved is whether Sec.37 of the Act would be a bar to the maintainability of the suit before the Civil Court.

5. This substantial question of law has to be answered in the affirmative. The Act makes provisions for preparation of draft scheme, its publication, disposal of objections and after other formalities, for confirmation of the scheme and under Sec.16 of the Act, confirmation scheme is to be treated as finally published record of rights. There is provision for appeal against the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer in Sub-section (6) of Sec.10 of the Act. Sec.35 of the Act makes provision for revision and reference by the Director of Consol