( 1. ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the Single Judge of this Court, who while hearing an appeal had maintained the order of dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiffs-appellants against respondents under section 11 (5) of the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 after obtaining leave from the learned Judge of this Court.

( 2. ) THE present appellants-plaintiffs who are related to each other filed a suit under section 11 (5) of M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). This suit was filed without notice to the collector under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the Collector had passed an order under the Act directing that the appellants lands in excess of 75 acres vested in the State. On behalf of the defendants-respondents an objection was taken that such a suit against the Collector cannot be filed without notice under section 80, Civil Procedure Code. The trial Court upholding this objection dismissed the suit, whereas the first appellate Court set aside the dismissal and ordered remand of the case holding that notice under section 80 was not necessary. On appeal, the learned Single Judge of this Court passed judgment dated 28-10-1968 setting aside the order passed by the lower appellate court and maintaining the dismissal of the suit on the ground that for a suit under section 11 (5) of the Act a notice under section 80, Civil Procedure Code is necessary.

( 3. ) SECTION 11 (4) of the Act provides as under:

"if while considering the objections received under sub-section (3) or otherwise, the competent authority finds that any question has arisen regarding the title of a particular holder and such question has not already been determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the competent authority shall proceed to enquire summarily into the merits of such question and pass such orders as it thinks fit. Provided that if such question is already pending for decision before a competent court, the competent authority shall await the decision of the Court. "

In this provision, the competent authority under the Act, who for the purposes of the present case is Collector has the authority to enquire summarily into the merits of questions raised and pass orders. In the present case, Collector, indore passed orders under the above sub clause. Aggrieved by this order the present appellants filed a suit under sub-clause (5) of section 11. The sub-clause provides as under :-

"the order of the competent authority under sub-section (4) shall not be subject to appeal or revision, but any party may within three months from the date of such order, institute a suit in the civil Court to have the order set aside, and the decision of such Court shall be binding on the competent authority, but subject to the result of such suit, if any, the order of the competent authority shall be final and conclusive. "

Apparently, therefore, a suit can be filed against the order of the competent authority and the competent authority under sub-clause (4) functions within the four-corners of the authority vested in it by sub-clause (4) of section 11 of the Act. Consequently, it cannot be doubted that when Collector functions as a competent authority under the Act, he functions under the powers conferred on him by sub-clause (4) of section 11 of the Act and not because he happens to be a Collector. It is also clear that an order passed by competent authority is final only subject to the decision of a suit under section 11 (5) of the Act. Consequently, the powers conferred on the competent authority make the order of the competent authority final except for a suit under section 11 (5) of the act. This therefore, is clearly a remedy provided for under the Act and it cannot be said that the remedy of the suit is a common law remedy or a remedy available under the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, a suit under section 11 (5) of the Act is a specia