Suit barred due to lack of objection against record of rights; civil court jurisdiction excluded under specific statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Sinha along with Ms. Shreesha Sinha, Mr. Bhupal Krishna Prasad and Mr. Niraj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. J.P. Jha, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Sanjeev Thakur and Mr. Aishwarya Prakash, learned counsel appearing for legal heirs of respondent no.1.

2. In light of the order dated 23.02.2017, respondent nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 have already been transposed and joined the petitioner.

3. This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 12.05.2010 passed in Title Suit No.88/2006 by the learned Sub-Judge-1^st, Dumka, whereby, the petition filed under Order VII Rule 11(a)(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as “C.P.C.”) by the defendant/petitioner for rejection of the plaint has been refused by the learned Court.

4. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the lands appertaining to Gantzer J.B. No.17 of Mauza Bara, P.S. Jama and lands of J.B. No.24 of Mauza Gajanda, P.S. Jama, District- Dumka stood recorded in the name of Lalji Mahto, Bhullan Mahto and Feku Mahto, all sons of Late Katki Mahto in the purcha of last settlement. He next submits that the said recorded tenant Bhulan Mahto and Feku Mahto predeceased issueless by surviving recorded tenant Lalji Mahto who also subsequently died in 1946 leaving behind his married daughter Shanti Baidain (mother of petitioner) who inherited the entire lands within the J.B. No. 17 of Bara and of the J.B. No. 24 of Mauza Gajanda and since then came in exclusive cultivating possession and occupation of the same and also resided in her father's house.

5. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that in course of recent survey settlement operation, the petitioner's mother name was recorded during the stage of Khanapuri in respect to the J.B. No. 17 (New J.B. No. 162) and J.B. No. 24 (New J.B. No. 32) and, accordingly, the Khanapuri Purcha of New J.B. No. 162 corresponding to J.B. No. 17 and the new J.B. No. 32 corresponding to J.B. No. 24 was issued in exclusive name of the petitioner’s mother. He then submits that the original respondent no.1 Lobin Manjhi and others filed objection against the said Khanapuri entry vide Badar No. 18 Gha, peskari Badar No. 7 for Mauza Gajanda and T.L. Case No. 13 at Attestation Camp at Lakra Pahari and also at Bara Palasi with respect to lands of both J.B. No. 17 and 24. He submits that the Assistant Settlement Officer vide its order dated 10.12.1982 confirmed the Khanapuri entry in favour of the petitioner’s mother and rejected the claim of the original respondent no.1 Lobin Manjhi with respect to entries made in the name of petitioner’s mother of the lands of J.B. No. 17 of Mauza Bara and the name of the petitioner’s mother was allowed to remain and the respondents’ claim was rejected with respect to the lands of J.B. No. 24 Mauza Ganjan