Both these second appeals arise out of a common judgment and decree passed by the Assistant District Judge, Goal para in Title Appeal Nos. 145/77 and 8/78 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff No. l, Dhubri in Title Suit No.32/69. The facts of the case are briefly as under, A jote of 400 Bighas 1 Kitha 15 Dhur held by the plain tiffs -appellants under the Gauripur Acquired Estate in Mouza Khumtachar, Dihi Gauripur, District Goalpara, was acquired by the State of Assam by Notification No. RRZ.3/59/360 dated 9.3J959 and the said jote vested in the State by virtue thereof with effect from the 1st day of Bohag. 1366 B. S. i.e. 15th April, 1959. The said jute was settled with the predecessors-in interest of the plaintiffs by the then Gauripur Raj Estate. After the acquisition of the jote by the State, a compensation case being Compensation Case No. Ill-598 (G)59 was started by the Compensation Officer, Dhubri for assessment of the compensation payable to the plaintiffs. But during the pendency of the said compensation case one Kshitish Chandra Mitra, predecessor-in-interest of the defendant-respondent No. l(a) to 1(1) and others filed a petition in November, 1967 before the Deputy Commissioner, Goal para that the land of the jote in question was khas land of the Gauripur Raj Estate and on acquisition of the said Estat- by the State of Assam the land of the said jote became khas land of the State. On the basis of the aforesaid petition a case was registered being Misc. Case No. 40/67-68, which was dealt with by the Additional Deputy Comm­issioner, Goalpara District, Dhubri. During the enquiry a report was called for from the Tahsildar, Dhubri Tahsil, Dhubri which went in favour of the plaintiff. However, a further report was called for from the Principal Revenue Assistant who reported that "the entire land tenure is lost by diluvion and in the last record of rights publication, the entire land is shown as khas'. It was, however, stated in the said report that the land continued to be in the name of Nek Mohammad S.k and others, the vendors, of the plaintiff. It was suggested that the acquisition notification issued by the State Government should be withdrawn. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the Additional Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 16.168 dropped both the acquisition case and the compensation case. It was suggested that the acquisition notification issued by the State Government should be withdrawn. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the Additional Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 16.168 dropped both the acquisition case and the compensation case. Being aggrieved by the action of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (shortly 'the A. D. C.') the plaintiffs-appellants filed a suit in the Court of the Munsiff at Dhubri. The main contention of the plaintiffs was that the order dated 16.8.68 passed by the A.D.C. was illegal and without jurisdi­ction and the Notification dated 9.3 59 acquiring the land was valid and had to be given effect to. The learned Munsiff decreed the suit and declared that the proceedings before the A.D.C. in Misc. Case No.40/67-68 and his order dated 16.8.68 were illegal and without jurisdiction. It was further declared that Notification No. 3/56/360 dated 9.3.59 issued by the Government of Assam under the provisions of the Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaries Act, 1951 (hereinafter 'the Act') was valid add must be given effect to and that the Compensation Case No. I If-598 (G) 59 before the Com­pensation Officer should proceed. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff, Dhubri two appeals were filed before the Assistant District Judge, Dhubri, which were numbered as Title Appeal Nos. 145/77 and 8/78. The learned Assistant District Judge held that there was no jote in existence at the time of issue of the notification by the State Government acquiring the land under the Act and that the jurisdiction of the civil Court was ousted by the provisions of the said Act. The suit filed by the plaintiff, it was held, was not maintainable and that the learned Munsiff committed an error by decreeing the suit. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff were, therefore, set aside. Aggrieved by the common judgment and decree passed by the learned Assistant District Judge on appeal, the present two appeals were filed by the plaintiffs-appellants. The main contention of the appellant is that the learned Assistant District Judge committed manifest error of law in holding that the jurisdiction of the civil Court was ousted because of the provision of section 23 of the Act and that the order passed by the A. D. C, could not have been challenged in a civil suit. The main contention of the appellant is that the learned Assistant District Judge committed manifest error of law in holding that the jurisdiction of the civil Court was ousted because of the provision of section 23 of the Act and that the order passed by the A. D. C, could not have been challenged in a civil suit. The contention of the appellants is that in order to avail of the bar to jurisdiction of civil Court contained in section 23 of the Act, the impugned order must be 'passed under the provisions of the Act or the Rules framed the­reunder. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules empower­ing A. D. C. during the pendency of a compensation proceeding before the Compensation Officer, to drop the proceedings thereby in effect withdrawing and/or nullifying the acquisition notification made by the State Government. The further submission of the appellants is that the Assistant District Judge was wrong in holding that the compensation proceeding can be dropped without the acquisition proceeding being challenged in any way. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants Mr. A. C. Sarma. The Act is a complete Code in itself in the matter of acqu­isition, compensation, enquiry, investigation etc. Different authorities for the purpose have been specified in the Act. Section 3 of the Act empowers the State Government to declare by notification that the estate or tenure specified therein shall stand transferred to and vest in the, State. Section 4 deals with the consequences of such notifications issued under section 3. Section 10 provides for prepar­ation of a Compensation Statement. Section 21 lays down the mode of payment of compensation. Sub-section (5) of the said section deals for a contingency where a dispute may arise as to the title of any person entitled, according to the compensation statement, to receive the amount. Section 10 provides for prepar­ation of a Compensation Statement. Section 21 lays down the mode of payment of compensation. Sub-section (5) of the said section deals for a contingency where a dispute may arise as to the title of any person entitled, according to the compensation statement, to receive the amount. It reads "(5) If any dispute arises as to the title of any such person to receive the amount or as to the apportionment of it, the Compensation Officer may, if he thinks fit, keep the amount of compensation or the bonds referred to above in the manner prescribed, until the Claims Officer or any com­petent Court to whom the parties shall be referred finally determines the dispute, and on such determination the Compe­nsation Officer shall pay the amounts or the portions the­reof, to the person or persons entitled to receive the same”. From the aforesaid provision it is clear that the law takes care of cases where there is a dispute as to the title of the person entitled to compensation according to the compensation statement. AH objections in regard to the title have to be raised before the Compensation Officer. It is thus made clear that once a notifica­tion under section 3 of the Act has been made, the determination of disputes in regard to title of a person whether a proprietor or a tenure holder shall be dealt with in the manner laid down therein. He may refer such dispute to the Claims Officer appointed under the Act or to a competent Court and till such determination he may keep the amount of compensation and may not pay the amount to the person or persons entitled to receive the same. There is no provision in the Act which empowers the Additional Deputy Commissioner to entertain any petition disputing the title of the person entitled to get compensation or authorising him to dispose of the same or drop the compensation proceeding. Orders in compensation proceeding may be passed only by the Compens­ation Officer who is competent authority and not by the A.D.C. Mr. K. K. Mahanta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the A.D.C. submits that by order dated 16.8.68 the A.D.C. simply dropped the compensation proceedings, and that it had no affect on the notification under section 3 of the Act. K. K. Mahanta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the A.D.C. submits that by order dated 16.8.68 the A.D.C. simply dropped the compensation proceedings, and that it had no affect on the notification under section 3 of the Act. Besides, according to the learned counsel the order passed by the A. D. C. is an Order under sub-section (6) of section 6 against which ah appeal lies under section 7 to the Deputy Commissioner. His submission is that the order being an order under sub-section (6) of section 6 and there being provision for appeal against the same, the bar to jurisdiction of civil Court contemplated by section 23 of the Act applies and the first appellate Court rightly held that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and to pass the impugned decree. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for both the parties. I have examined the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 6 and section 23 of the Act on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondents. Section 6 deals with the settlement of land with the ex-proprietor or ex-tenure holder. It does not deal with the determination of title of the land and the payment of compensation in respect thereof. The question of compensation is dealt with by sections 10 and 21. The power is vested on the Compensation Officer. Sub-section (5) of section 21, as stated earlier, specifically provides for dealing with disputes as to title of a person to receive the amount of compensation and such dispute has to be settled by the Compensation Officer in terms of the decisi­on of the Claims Officer or competent Court to whom the parties may be referred by him for determination of such dispute. It is thus clear that it is the Compensation Officer alone who can go into any dispute as to title of a person to receive compensation. In the instant case, the petition filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant No. 1 was that the land in question having become khas land the plaintiffs had no right to get any compensation in respect thereof. The A. D. C. entertained the petition and started a Miscellaneous case, made enquiries himself and dropped the compensation case. In the instant case, the petition filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant No. 1 was that the land in question having become khas land the plaintiffs had no right to get any compensation in respect thereof. The A. D. C. entertained the petition and started a Miscellaneous case, made enquiries himself and dropped the compensation case. The plaintiffs approached the civil Court and the civil Court declared that the A.D.C. had no jurisdiction to pass such an order and that the notification issued by the State Gove­rnment was valid and the compensation case should proceed. I do not find that the learned trial Court committed any error in coming to the aforesaid conclusion. Evidently, the A. D. C. had no jurisdic­tion to entertain any dispute regarding the right of a person to to get compensation in respect of land which is subject matter of a notification under section 3 of the Act. Such claim can tie decided by the Compensation Officer only in accordance with the provision of sub-section (5) of section 21 of the Act, Nor the A. D. C, had any tight to withdraw, invalidate or frustrate the acquisition notification issued by the State Government under section 3 of the Act. Anything of that sort could have been attempted to by the State alone. The order passed by the A. D. C, was the­refore, not an order passed under the Act. It was therefore rightly declared to be illegal and without jurisdiction. So far as the question of bar to the jurisdiction of civil Court is concerned, section 23 of the Act provides : "23. Bar to jurisdiction of Civil Courts in certain matters -Save as otherwise expressly provided in any provisions under this Act, no suit or other proceedings shall Me in any Civil Court in respect of any entry in or omission from compensation statement published under this Act or in respect of any order passed or any act done or purporting to be done under this Act or the Rules, made thereunder." Section 23 comes into play only if the order sought to be challen­ged in a civil Court is an order passed under the Act or Rules made thereunder. In the instant case, as stated earlier, the order dated 16.8.68 passed by the A.D.C. was not an order passed under the Act or the Rules made thereunder. In the instant case, as stated earlier, the order dated 16.8.68 passed by the A.D.C. was not an order passed under the Act or the Rules made thereunder. The bar contemplated by section 23, therefore, does not apply to such a case. It is well settled that the bar to approach civil Court would not operate if it could be shown that the entire proceeding before the authority concerned was illegal and without jurisdiction. In such a case the civil Court would have jurisdiction despite the bar imposed by the provisions of the Act. In the instant case, as stated earlier, the order passed by the A. D. C. not being an order passed under the provisions of the Act was illegal and without jurisdiction, and as such, the question of bar to the jurisdiction of civil Court does not apply. The learned Munsiff was, therefore, justified in entertaining the suit declaring the order passed by the A. D. C. as illegal and directing that the compensation case pending before the Compensation Officer would proceed. In view of what is stated above, I am of the opinion that the learned Assist­ant District Judge was not justified in holding that the jurisdiction of the civil Court was ousted by section 23 of the Act and in setting aside "The judgment passed by the learned Munsiff. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Assistant District Judge are, therefore, set aside. The appeals' are allowed. No order as to costs.