JUDGMENT A.H. Khan, J. The plaintiff filed a suit on the allegation that the Zamindar of the village granted him a Maurusi Patta of the land in dispute and that he was in possession of it and had also partly cultivated it, that the Tehsildar in contravention of law gave Patta of this land to the defendant under the Madhya Bharat Land Utilisation Act (Act No. 38 of 1950). The trial Court held that in view of section 6 of the Madhya Bharat Land Utilisation Act, a civil Court cannot call in question an order passed under the Act, and, therefore, dismissed the suit. This decision was upheld in appeal. This is plaintiff's second appeal. Section 6 of the Land Utilisation Act runs thus:- No order made in exercise of any power conferred by or under this Act or any rule made thereunder shall be called in question in any civil or criminal Court. Although it is true that an order under the Act cannot be called in question by a civil Court, yet if an order transcends the limits of the law or Act or is given in contravention of law, then certainly it is open to the civil Court to see whether the Tehsildar has acted within the four corners of law or not. If he has acted against the law, his order is a nullity and can be so pronounced by a civil Court. I am fortified in my view by the observations of the Privy Council reported in Secretary of State v. Mask and Co. AIR 1940 PC 105 which are as follows:- The exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil Courts is not to be readily inferred but such exclusion must either be explicitly expressed or clearly implied. Even if jurisdiction is so excluded, the civil Courts have jurisdiction to examine into cases where the provisions of the Act have not been complied with, or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. I, therefore, hold that a civil Court has jurisdiction to examine case where the provisions of the Land Utilisation Act (Act No. 38 of 1950) have not been complied with, or have been contravened. I, therefore, hold that a civil Court has jurisdiction to examine case where the provisions of the Land Utilisation Act (Act No. 38 of 1950) have not been complied with, or have been contravened. From the plaint, it appears that the main grievance of the plaintiff is that he was already in occupation of the land in dispute as a tenant and that the Tehsildar is not competent to give Patta of such land under section 3 of the Madhya Bharat Land Utilisation Act. Though the section has not been referred to in the plaint, yet the real grievance of the plaintiff is that the Tehsildar acted in contravention of section 3 of the Madhya Bharat Land Utilisation Act. For reasons stated above, I allow the appeal and setting aside the judgments of the Courts below, remit the case to the trial Court to decide the case in accordance with observations made above. The costs hitherto incurred shall be borne by the parties. Appeal allowed