IMPORTANT POINT
The BPPHT Act's provisions, particularly Section 18, bar civil suits challenging settlement orders unless fraud or jurisdictional issues are proven, emphasizing the finality of administrative decisions under the Act.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the concurrent findings of the learned trial court and the first appellate court passed in Title Suit No. 83 of 1997 and Title Appeal No. 56 of 2013 respectively, whereby and whereunder the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed.

Factual Matrix of the Case

2. Factual matrix of the case is that appellant/plaintiff has filed the suit for a decree of declaring his right, title and interest over the suit scheduled property B land measuring an area 3 decimals fully described in Schedule B to the plaint and also for declaration that the Parcha issued under the BPPHT Act, 1947 (Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947) is infructuous and confirmation of possession over the suit property and alternatively, if plaintiff is found dispossessed for restoration of possession of suit property and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from disturbing the plaintiffs possession in any manner along with cost of the suit.

3. According to plaintiff, he is the owner of the Schedule-A property having right title and continuous possession which was purchased by him from right full owner Amrit Kaur who executed the sale deed nos. 4808, 4809 and 4811 in favour of plaintiff on 08.05.1985 being the mother and natural guardian of three minor sons, namely, Pupeendra Singh, Narendra Singh and Gurmeet Singh and at the time of sale the plaintiff was put in possession and thereafter the plaintiff is in continuous possession and enjoying the same. The plaintiff’s name is also mutated in the circle office (defendant no.3). Jamabandi has been opened in his name and plaintiff is paying rent to the State of Bihar and obtaining rent receipt. It is further alleged that plaintiff has also covered the scheduled A property by raising boundary wall within the knowledge of the defendant. It is further alleged that plaintiff is a Railway Employee and was residing at Gomoh and occasionally used to visit the Scheduled A land. In the month of May, 1989, the plaintiff went to his land and surprisingly found that defendant no. 4 has put a hutment over the portion of the Scheduled A land which is described as Scheduled B to the plaint. Then plaintiff informed this matter to Jitpur village Panchayat on 04.05.1989 and sarpanch gave a report to the defendant no. 4 to look into the matter. Thereafter, the plaintiff came to know that scheduled-B land is settled to the defendant no.4 by the State Authority through defendant no.3., the Circle Officer, Topchanchi and the plaintiff thought that settlement was done wrongly and on wrong information of the land and on enquiry, he found that the plot of land bearing plot no. 1124 under Khata No. 193 of the same village and northern to the plot of the plaintiff belongs to the State of Bihar and is lying vacant. Accordingly, the plaintiff suggested the authorities through his application dated 02.08.1990 that the government land be settled to the defendant no.4 and wrongly the land of the plaintiff was settled to the defendant no. 4, be released to the plaintiff and the local authorities also supported the suggestion of the plaintiff by forwarding his application to the defendant no. 3 and lastly the defendant no.3 by his order dated 07.04.1986 in BPHT Case No. 1(II)/86-87 settled the land to the defendant no.4 and the plaintiff’s representation was never considered and in this way the defendants tried to grab the land of the plaintiff under Schedule B. The plaintiff also filed the representation before the defendant no.2 who without his jurisdiction advised the plaintiff to file an appeal against the order dated 13.01.1995 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 42/94-95. Thereafter, the plaintiff went to the Hon’ble High Court but he was advised to move to the collector then the plaintiff has filed the regular suit, since the plaintiff has no faith in the State authority. The cause of action fo