The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the key provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1976, and the court's emphasis on the conditions for maintainability of an application under Section 5 and the bar of jurisdiction under Section 14.

1. By this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants have challenged the legality & propriety or the judgment and decree dated 15.3-94 passed by the Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazaar in Civil Appeal No.23-A/93, affirming the order dated 4.10.1993 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Baloda Bazaar in Civil Suit No.145-A/88, whereby civil suit filed on behalf of original plaintiff/appellant Devidayal for permanent injunction has been dismissed.

2. The present appeal has been admitted for consideration on the following substantial question of law:

"Whether a right to prescribed procedure is a civil right and a civil suit is maintainable for declaration that the decision is invalid and not binding ?"

3. As per allegation made in the plaint on behalf of the original plaintiff/ appellant, he was owner of 5.31 acres of the land situated at village Lawan, Patwari Circle No. ] 03, Tahsil Baloda Bazaar. Defendant No.2 i.e. Naib Tahsildar initiated Revenue Case No.77 -B/121-87 -88 for eviction of the plaintiff from the aforesaid land which was void and without jurisdiction. Order dated 18.8.80 passed against dead person Mangalacharan was without jurisdiction without bringing legal heir of Mangalacharan i.e. plaintiff Devidayal. Older passed by the appellate Court dated 7.6.88 was also without jurisdiction. Aforesaid proceeding was not against original plaintiff Devidayal, no opportunity of hearing was provided to him. On the aforesaid basis, suit for permanent injunction from restraining the defendants was filed by original plaintiff/appellant Devidayal.

4. By filing written statement original defendant Dhanbai i.e. predecessor in-title of present respondents No.1-A to I-H has denied the allegation made in the plaint and has specifically pleaded that father of the appellant has illegally obtained possession of the land belonging to Dhanbai which has been purchased by husband of Dhanbai namely, Sibo from one Prahlad. Mangalacharan, father of original plaintiff Devidayal has lent Rs.14001- to Sibo and as a security of loan he succeeded in execution of sale deed which was not to be acted upon in his favour. Even otherwise Sibo has purchased the land on consideration of Rs.34001- and it was not possible to sell the same only on consideration of Rs.14001-. Proceeding under the Chhattisgarh Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi-Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam, 1976') was drawn by competent authority. After inquiry application filed on behalf of original defendant Dhanbai was dismissed. Same was challenged before appellate Court and vide order dated 7.6.88 the Additional Collector, Raipur has allowed the appeal and directed for return of the land to original defendant Dhanbai in which legal heir of Manglacharan namely Devidayal was respondent. Order passed under -the aforesaid act reached into finality and was not subject-matter of any civil suit in accordance with Sections 9 and 14 of the Adhiniyam, 1976. Issues were framed and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties, Civil Judge Class-II, Baloda Bazaar finally dismissed the suit for permanent injunction. Same was challenged before the appellate Court and vide judgment and decree impugned the appellant Court has dismissed the appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment and decree impugned, judgment and decree of the trial Court and records of the Courts below.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that competent authority under the aforesaid Adhiniyam has drawn proceeding against Manglacharan on 28.4.82 vide order sheets Ex.O/2. As per report of patwari Ex.O/3, Manglacharan died during pendency of aforesaid proceeding leaving his only legal heir Devidayal, original plaintiff. Final order Ex.P/S was passed on 18.9.87, in which names of the parties were shown