The civil court's jurisdiction is not barred in cases where the order under Rule 18 is illegal, the remedy provided by the Regulation is insufficient, complicated questions of title are involved, or the plaintiff seeks a declaration of title.

HANSARIA, J.:- A question of great public importance is involved in this reference. Realising the importance of the subject, one of us (Hansaria, J.) sitting singly referred the following question of law for answer:

"Whether a Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit which challenges, or is connected with, any act done or purported to have been done under Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886? If so, under what circumstances?"

2. The core facts which deserve notice to answer the question are these: The plaintiff was possessing 48 bighas and odd land in some villages of Goalpara district. He came to possess the land after having acquired the right of occupancy from various persons. By an order dated 26-10-1966, the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara, acting under the provisions of Rule 18 of the aforesaid Rules, ordered for eviction of the plaintiff from the aforesaid land as the land had vested in the State under the provisions of the Assam Acquisition of Zamindari Act. An appeal was preferred against the order of eviction before the Assam Board of Revenue. The appeal, however, came to be dismissed on 7-2-1969. It is alleged, that on 15-12-1969 forcible possession of the suit land was sought to be taken by the Sub-Deputy Collector when the plaintiff was made to sign a paper stating that he was possessing the land as a tenant of the Government whereupon he was allowed to occupy the land. The present suit was filed thereafter on 5-8-1970 seeking a declaration of the plaintiffs right, title and interest over the suit land, so also for declaration that the encroachment case started against the plaintiff was void and inoperative. A prayer was also made for confirmation of the plaintiffs possession over the suit land and in the alternative to allow khas possession of the land.

3. Among other pleas taken by the defendants one was that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The trial court accepted the plea as it felt satisfied that its jurisdiction has been taken away by Sections 154(1)(c). 154(2) and 154-A of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, for short the Regulation.

4. When the appeal was heard by the learned single Judge he felt that the matter required deep consideration inasmuch as certain contingencies favoured the existence of civil courts jurisdiction but some countered the pull. Being conscious of the fact that there is reportedly large scale encroachment over the Government land, it was felt that the question relating to jurisdiction should be decided by a Bench of three Judges in view of the importance of the subject and also because of certain Division Bench decisions of this Court may require reconsideration.

5. We may note the relevant provisions of the Regulation which according to the defendants bar the jurisdiction of the civil court. In this connection Ss.154 (1), 154(2) and 154-A of the Regulation are material and the relevant parts of the same read as below :

"154 (1). Except when otherwise expressly provided in this Regulation, or in rules issued under this Regulation, no civil court shall exercise jurisdiction in any of the following :

(a) questions as to the validity or effect of any settlement or as to whether the conditions of any settlement are still in force;

(b) *** ***

(c) the formation of the records-of-rights, or the preparation, signing, or alteration of any document contained therein;

***** ***** ***** *****

(d) any matter regarding ejectment of any person from a land over which no person has acquired right of a proprietor, land-holder or settlement holder and . . . . . . . . ."

(2) In all the, above cases, jurisdiction shall rest with the revenue authorities only. S.154-A - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court any notice served or any action taken or any penalty imposed or any ejectment done under sub-rules (1), (2), 3(a) and 3(b), (4), (5) and 5(a) of Rule 18 of the Settlement