The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authorities under the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act have limited adjudicatory power and cannot adjudicate disputes of title and possession. Any order passed by them in such matters is void, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be excluded.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 9th December 2011 passed in T.S.No. 374 of 2011 by which the court below has rejected the petition filed by her challenging the jurisdiction of the civil court to proceed with the matter on the ground that earlier the same issue was raised under Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 (hereinafter, in short, referred to as the „BLDR Act?) which was disallowed and at the same time, the court below by the same order has allowed the petition filed by the respondents and appointed an Advocate Commissioner to find out the physical feature of the disputed land.

3. The defendant is the petitioner and the respondents 1st set is the plaintiff in the court below. A suit has been filed vide T.S.No. 374 of 2011 in which the plaintiff had claimed title interest and possession over the land in question on the basis of a sale-deed executed in his favour on 3rd June 2005 whereas the defendant has claimed title on the basis of sale deed executed on 29th February 1992.

4. The petitioner filed a petition stating that before filing the suit, the plaintiff had filed Case No.4 of l2010-11 before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms (East) Muzaffarpur under Bihar Land Tribunal Act, 2009 and the parties have sought the same relief as mentioned in the suit. After hearings the parties, the learned D.C.L.R.(East), Muzaffarpur finally decided the matter on merit and passed the order date d 4th April 2011 in favour of petitioner and against plaintiff-Respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 18 of the Bihar Land Tribunal Act bars the jurisdiction, save and except otherwise provided under the Act as no Court except Patna High Court and the Hon?ble Supreme Court of India shall have jurisdiction to entertain any proceeding to set aside or modify the any order or decision taken by the authority under Bihar Land Tribunal Act or Rules made hereunder. As the issue has been settled in such a situation, the suit is fit to be dismissed on the point of jurisdiction only. Respondents did not file any rejoinder but only made submission stating that Civil Court is the only forum to adjudicate the dispute in the question. Further submission was made on behalf of plaintiff-respondents that the case was not filed under the Bihar Land Tribunal Act, 2009 rather it was filed under the BLDR Act, 2009 and there is no Section 18 as only seven teen sections are available in that Act. It has further been submitted that as the issue involved in the case was complex in nature as it related to adjudication of title and possession and as such, it was open to seek remedy before the competent civil court and it has been submitted that jurisdiction of civil court is not barred. It has been submitted that only the matter which relates to Schedule-I of the Act can only be decided by the Authority under BLDR Act and other disputes not related to items mentioned in Schedule-I, the Authority will not have jurisdiction under the BLDR Act to decide the issue relating to title of parties. Petitioner has claimed that it is a title dispute between the partiers which is complex in nature and, as such, under the BLDR Act, that issue cannot be decided.

6. In this case, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the plaintiff has chosen a forum under the BLDR Act, which has decided the case against her and she did not prefer any appeal against that order, she cannot be allowed to go to the civil court which is not permissible in law. Before deciding the issue as has been raised in this case, it is necessary to examine the area of scope of BLDR Act and what nature of dispute can be decided by the authorities under the aforesaid Act. This Court will have to examine as to whether the Authority BLDR Act has jurisdiction to decide the issue with regard to title of the parties.

7. The examinatio