Advocates:
['AMAN SEHKHAR', '', 'ASHISH KR THAKUR', 'SUDHANSHU SHEKHAR CHOUDHARY', 'OM PRAKASH TIWARI', '', 'AMAN KUMAR', 'SAVITA KUMARI', 'GAUTAM KUMAR', 'BIRAT KUMAR']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

C.M.P. No. 270 of 2022

------

Ramprabesh Mandal @ Rampravesh Mandal

....

....

….

Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana

Division, Dumka

2. Settlement Officer, Dumka

3. Assistant Settlement Officer, Dumka

4. Bhadu Mandal

5. Binod Mandal

6. Arti Devi

7. Lalita Devi

8. Namita Devi

....

....

....

Opposite Parties

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Jai Prakash Jha, Sr. Advocate

Mr. S.S. Choudhary, Advocate

For the State

: Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, Advocate

Oral Order

07/ Dated :15.12.2022

Instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the

order dated 21.05.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge III, Rajmahal in O.S.

No.22 of 2016 by which the learned Court below has decided the Issue No.V

and held jurisdiction of the Court below was not ousted.

2.

The petitioner is the defendant, and the suit has been filed by the

opposite party No.4- Bhadu Mandal and others for declaration of right, title,

interest and possession over the suit land and in the event, the plaintiff being

dispossessed, for recovery of possession for the suit land detailed in the plaint.

3.

The defendant appeared and contested the suit inter alia on the

ground that plaintiff instead of taking steps under Section 25 of Regulation III

of 1878, before settlement Court, has wrongly filed the suit before the Civil

Court which is not maintainable since the survey settlement proceeding has

been initiated.

4.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties issues were framed and

the learned court below, before taking up other issues took up Issue No.V.:

< Whether the plaintiff suit is barred under the provisions of Section 5 of the

Santhal Paragana Regulation III 1872?=

5.

The learned Court below decided Issue No.V in favour of the

2

plaintiff by holding that the suit was not barred as Section 63 of the Santhal

Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949 bars the institution of suits which seek to vary,

modify or set aside and order passed by Deputy Commissioner in exercise of

the revenue jurisdiction of the Act. Since the plaintiffs had been seeking

declaration of the right, title and interest on the basis of his sale deed of the

year 1968 therefore, the suit was not barred under Section 5 of the Regulation

III, 1872.

6.

It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that order

dated 21.05.2022 passed by the Court below in O.S. No.22 of 2016 is illegal,

arbitrary and bad in the eye of law. The order has been assailed mainly on the

ground that once the survey settlement proceedings is initiated, the jurisdiction

of Civil Court is ousted till the final publication of the record of rights after

completion of the survey operation. Vide Notification dated 14.10.1977, an

order was issued under Santhal Pargana Settlement Regulation, 1872 for

initiation of settlement proceeding for the present and a record of rights to be

prepared under Section 9 of the Santhal Pargana Settlement Regulation III,

1872 covering the entire District of Santhal Parganas including Sub-Divisions

of Dumka, Godda and Rajmahal which is still going on and till date final

publication has not been made.

7.

It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of opposite parties

that as per Notification, the Assistant Settlement Officer has passed an order

dated 11.10.2017 in Objection Suit No.434 of 2017 (Anju Devi Versus

Jharkhand Sarkar) and as per Rule XXV 8(b), the learned Settlement Officer

passed his order dated 21.06.2022 allowing the appeal bearing Settlement

Misc. Appeal No.115 of 2018 (Asha Devi Versus Anju Kumari).

Section 63 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1949 reads as

under:-

<No suit shall be entertained in any court t