The civil court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging an order declaring land as surplus under the Madhya Pradesh Land Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, where there is no title dispute and the aggrieved party has not exhausted the remedies available through the revenue hierarchy.

T.S. Doabia, J.

1. The brief facts which led to the filing of the suit out of which this appeal has arisen be noticed :

The land in the hands of one Kammod Singh father of the appellant in this appeal was declared surplus. The plea taken by him before the revenue authorities was that his son i.e., the appellant, Datar Singh, being a major, he is entitled to some more land was negatived. An order to this effect was passed by the Competent Authority on 26th October, 1983. It was specifically mentioned in the order that on the material available with the competent authority, Datar Singh was a minor. His age was below 18 years. Accordingly, land to the extent of 3.790 hectares was declared surplus. This order passed by the competent authority was challenged in the civil suit out of which this appeal has arisen.

2. The trial Court came to the conclusion that it has no jurisdiction to proceed with the suit on account of provisions contained in Section 46 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The matter was taken up in appeal. The appellate Court agreed with the conclusions arrived at by the Court below and came to the conclusion that bar of section 46 of the Act would be attracted. It is this judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below which is being impugned in the present second appeal.

3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the above provision would not be attracted because of the provisions contained in Section 11(5) of the Act.

4. The provisions of Section 11(4) and (5) of the Act as there existed before Amendment Act No. 8 of 1989, be noticed.

"11. Preparation of statement of land held in excess of the ceiling area.

*** *** ***

(4) 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.

(5) 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 to the competent authority shall be final and conclusive."

5. It be seen that if a title dispute was settled Under Section 11(4), then a right was given to a party to approach the civil Court under Section 11(5) of the Act.

6. In the present case, there is no title dispute arises at all. The dispute was only as to whether Kammod Singh is entitled to extra land on account of the fact that his son, Datar Singh, appellant was a major on the appointed day as indicated in the aforementioned Act. As indicated above, the competent authority came to the conclusion that Datar Singh was a minor, and therefore, the father of the appellant, Kammod Singh was not entitled to retain extra land.

7. Thus, there was no dispute as to title, and therefore, the view expressed by the Court below that the bar created under section 46 of the Act, would be attracted is a view to which no exception can be taken. Kammod Singh, original land owner could have challenged the order passed by the competent authority on 26th October, 1983, before the revenue hierarchy. This was not done.

8. By placing reliance on a decision given by this Court in the case reported as Rengati v. Rupdevi Kumari, 1997 RN 276 it is urged that there is no absolute bar to the entertainment of civil suit even if there exists a provision in the shape of Section 46