This second appeal is by the defendants against the judgment and decree of reversion of the learned lower appellate Court below. 2. Facts are as follows :- Late husband of the plaintiff Late Priya Chanda took settlement of land in respect of Dag No. 51, 52 and 53 covered by Patta No.2 in Lakhipur Pargana, Cachar and thereafter he was in peace­ful possession of the land by cultivation on one part and by constructing dwelling house on the other part. He died in the year 1965 and thereafter plaintiff has been possessing the land. She also got khatian as tenant in respect of Dag No.51 and 52 but her claim as tenant in respect of Dag No. 53 was rejected by the appellate Revenue Authority. Hence, the suit praying for declaration that plaintiff is an occupancy tenant in respect of the said land covered by Dag No. 53. The area of the suit land is 1 bigha. The suit was resisted by defendant 1 to 4 and it was denied that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. It was also mentioned that in an earlier suit viz T. S. No. 4 of 1963, there was a deed of compromise and according to that deed the late husband and the plaintiff who was a party got only 5 kathas of land. Hence, it was prayed that suit may be dismissed. 3. The learned trial Court framed as many as 6 issues and dismissed the suit which was revised by the learned lower appellate Court. 4. Heard Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Senapati, for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised the point of law that in view of the provisions contained in Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 (for short the Act) civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present dispute. It is necessary to elaborate the factual part to appreciate this point. 6. The plaintiff approached the Revenue Authority under section 54A of the Act for registration of her position as a tenant. This matter was taken up by the Revenue Authority and by order Ext 9 allowed the claim of the present plaintiff in respect of Dag Nos. 51, 52 and 53. 6. The plaintiff approached the Revenue Authority under section 54A of the Act for registration of her position as a tenant. This matter was taken up by the Revenue Authority and by order Ext 9 allowed the claim of the present plaintiff in respect of Dag Nos. 51, 52 and 53. The Revenue Authority recorded that khatian in respect of tenancy was given to the plaintiff in respect of Dag No.51 and 52 (G) but in not respect of khatian No.53. But in spite of that they it allowed the claim of the plaintiff in respect of Dag No.53.The main ground for doing so is that unless this is granted she will not be able to enjoy the other 2 dags. This order was set asi de by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 6 6.79 passed in R.P. Appeal Case No. 803 of 1977-78. The appellate authority held that under the aforesaid section 54 A a Revenue Officer is competent only to restore possession in respect of tenanted land and as plaintiff did not get any tenancy khatian in respect of Dag No. 53 the order of the learned Revenue Officer in respect of this dag was not in accordance with law. 7. Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court to section 66 of the Act which, inter alia, provides that except where otherwise expressly provided for in the Act and Rules made thereunder no civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction in any of the matters mentioned in that section and in these matters the jurisdiction shall only be with the Revenue Court or Officer as the case may be. In the said section there are 5 matters including the matters "Possession of records of rights under Chapter X and preparation and signing or alteration of any documents contained therein", and claims to registration of possession under section 54 A. 8. Admittedly, in the case in hand the Revenue Authority had prepared the records of rights of the tenant and in respect of Dag No.53 plaintiff could not obtain tenancy khatian. That apart, as stated above her right to registra­tion of possession as tenant in respect of this dag has also been rejected by the Revenue Appellate Authority. These two facts are sufficient for me to hold that the same matter cannot be re-agitated in the civil Court. 9. That apart, as stated above her right to registra­tion of possession as tenant in respect of this dag has also been rejected by the Revenue Appellate Authority. These two facts are sufficient for me to hold that the same matter cannot be re-agitated in the civil Court. 9. There was a civil suit which was registered as T. S. No 4 of 1963 which ended in a compromise. Ext. Ka is the decree in the said suit and Ext. Kha is the compromise. From the compromise deed Ext. Kha, I find that the late husband of the plaintiff was given only 5 kathas of land in respect of the dags. The dags involved in the suit were 51, 52 and 53. The present claim of the plaintiff is for 1 bigha of land in respect of Dag No. 53 which is contrary to the compromise decree. 10. Mr. Senapati, learned counsel for the respondents relying on the order of the Revenue Officer has urged that the Revenue Officer rightly allo­wed the claim of the plaintiff in respect of Dag No. 53 for the reasons stated in the said order. As this order was modified by the appellate authority, the said order has merged in the order of the appellate authority and the final order of the appellate authority is binding. I am unable to accept contention of Mr.Senapati as in my opinion once the higher Revenue Authority has rejected ;he claim of the plaintiff in respect of Dag No. 53 for the purpose of giving relief, the judgment of the lower Revenue Autharity cannot be relied upon. 11. Regarding the earlier compromise decree and the compromise petition Ext. Ka and Kha, Mr. Senapati has urged drawing my attention to section 27 and Article 136 of the Limitation Act that no reliance can be placed on this compromise decree as it was not executed within the period of limitation. Learned counsel has further urged drawing my attention to Ext. 8 that in respect of Dag No.53, the plaintiff was given compensation for the land acquired 12. Regarding execution of the decree there is nothing on record to show that decree was not executed and that apart the question of execution would come if only the decree was not accepted by the parties which is not available in the case in hand. Regarding execution of the decree there is nothing on record to show that decree was not executed and that apart the question of execution would come if only the decree was not accepted by the parties which is not available in the case in hand. The fact that by the said decree the husband of the plaintiff got only 5 kathas of land will hold good in respect of the present plaintiff. 13 Regarding land acquisition compensation, I am unable to hold from Ext. 8 that plaintiff acquired any tenancy right in respect of the dag in question viz Dag No. 53. I, therefore, do not find any force in the contention of Mr. Senapati. 14. Situated thus I find merit in the present appeal and accordingly it is allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate Court. The decree of the learned trial Court is restored. Parties to bear their own cost.