Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Bar to suits.- No suit shall be entertained in any court to vary, modify or set aside, either directly or indirectly, any order of the Deputy Commissioner in any application which is cognizable by the Deputy Commissioner under this Act and every such order shall, subject to the provisions of this Act relating to appeal and revision, be final : Provided that nothing contained in this section shall bar the jurisdiction of a Civil Court in matters in which it had jurisdiction immediately before the Commencement of this Act. COMMENTS Section 63- If a title suit brought for avoiding the previous order of the Deputy Commissioner and affirmed by the Commissioner, which has become final under the Act is not maintainable. Section 63 will be a bar to the entertainment of such a suit. [Nakul Chandra Mandal v. commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, 1979 BLJR 201 : 1979 BLJ 26 : 1979 PLJR 153 Pat 41]. Section 63- No suit can be filed in Civil Court to set aside the order of the revenue Court . Suit can only be filed before the Civil Court when the order is ultra vires. [Nakul Chandra Mandal v. commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, 1979 BLJR 201 : 1979 BLJ 26 : 1979 PLJR 153 (Pat)]. Section 63 and 64-Jurisdiction under- Only 16 ana raiyats are entitled for settlement is Santhal Pargana outsiders cannot take settlement. Deputy Commissioner can exercise his jurisdiction to annual the settlement made in favour of outsiders at any time without any restriction of time period, (unless the person has perfected his right before the Act came into force). Revenue Court has jurisdiction to set aside a compromise decree obtained by suppression of its previous decision. The validity of the order of the Deputy Commissioner cannot be challenged in the Civil Court. [Nakul Chandra Mandal v. commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, 1979 BLJR 201 : 1979 BLJ 26 : 1979 PLJR 153]. Section 63 read with Rule 3 of Bihar Board Miscellaneous Rules, 1958- SPT is complete Code in itself- NO authority has power or jurisdiction to decide any matter arising out of an order under the provisions of SPT Act. Who is not empowered by the Court in terms of rules of course Boards Misc. Rules, even the Member Board of Revenue cannot exercise its power. The order passed by the Member, Board Revenue and all subsequent order are Without jurisdiction. [Prem Pandit v. State of Bihar, 1988 PLJR (NOC) 50 : 1988 BLJR 323 :BBCJ 301]. Section 60-Santhal Parganas Settlement Regulation Act, 1872, Section 5-Declaration of title-Civil Court empowered to entertain in suit against the order of Deputy Commissioner- From perusal of the Section 63 of the Santhal parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949, it is clear that this section bars the institution of suits which seek to vary, modify or set aside an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his revenue jurisdiction under the Act. It is, therefore, clear that suit does not seek to vary, modify or set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner or to avoid such order, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain suit. By implication it follows further that where an order of the Deputy Commissioner is in excess of the jurisdiction or without jurisdiction then it can certainly be challenged in a suit and the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. [Tarini Maradi v. Lakshmi Mahto, 1998 (3) BLJR 1662 : (2) All PLR 301 (Pat)]. Similarly Apex Court held that exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Court cannot be readily inferred and that normal rule is that Civil Courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature except those of witch cognizance by them is either expressly or impliedly excluded. [M.P. Electricity Board v. Vijay Timber Co., 1997 (1) SCC 68]. CHAPTER VIII LIMITATION