SIDHINATH BHAGAT Vs. AWADHESH KUMAR BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision by the defendant 1st party is directed against the order dated 13.6.97 passed by the 3rd Subordinate Judge, Godda, in Title Partition Suit No. 8 of 1990 by which the application to dismiss the suit as being not maintainable has been rejected.

(2.) THE suit is said to be barred in view of the provisions of Section 5 read with Section 9 of the Santhal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872 (Regulation No. 3 of 1872). Section 9 runs as follows: Power to order settlement. The State Government may from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette declare that a settlement shall be made of the whole or any part of the Santhal parganas for the purpose of ascertaining and recording the various interests and rights in the lands. Section 5 runs as follows: Every such decision, and every decision given in appeal therefrom, shall be certified by the said Court to the officer by whom the certificate mentioned in Sub section (1) was made, or to such' officer as the State Government may appoint in this behalf: and its purport, so far as relevant, shall thereupon be entered in the record of rights. It is contended that area comprising of Patharga, Amdiha, Dwarichak and Madhuchak villages are covered by notification No. S.O. 1387 dated 14.10.96 issued under Section 9 of the said Regulation and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable in the Civil Court.

(3.) COUNSEL for the opposite party, on the other hand, stated that certain lands of villages which fell within the purview of the notification dated 14.10.96 (supra) were later deleted by amendment. And so far as the remaining lands are concerned, they lie within the notified area within the meaning of Section 388 of the Municipal Act. Reference in this connection has been made to notification No. S.O. 1677 dated 1.11.74. The provisions of Section 5 of the Regulation are, therefore, not attracted. Counsel also took the plea that the parties to the suit including one of the plaintiffs have not been impleaded as opposite party in this revision. The submission is that the order as against them has become final. Any interference with the order would result in conflicting orders.