Judgment P. K. Deb, J. 1. -the petitioner in this case is the plaintiff of the Title Suit No.60 of 1990 whose suit has been dis-missed by the impugned order dated 4-5-1992 holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the barunder Sec.26 of the Coal Bear-ing Areas (Acquisition and Develop-ment) Act, 1957 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act ). 2. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendants for the following reliefs: " (A) That by adjudication the plaintiffs right, title, interest and possession over the suit lands be declared and confirmed or in the event of the dispossession a decree for khas possession be passed and suit lands be restored to the plaintiff. (B ). That the plaintiff is entitled for getting compensation and job for the suit lands from the defendants No.1 to 5 and defendant No.6 is not entitled to get com-pensation for the suit lands. (C) That by a permanent/temporary in-junction the defendants No.1 to 5 be restrained from making any payment of com-pensation with respect to suit lands to the defendant No.6. " 3. The suit was contested by filing separate written statements by defen--dants No.1 to 5 and also by defendant no.6. Juridictional point was raised by defendant No.6 referring to bar under sec.26 of the Act. Although it has not been stated/averred specifically about the notifications being made by the central Government under the Act or no challenge has been made regarding the acquisition under the Act and notifications being made but it appears that the plaintiff artistically designed the plaint for avoiding the title being transferred of the lands to the Central government but the main purport of the suit is nothing but getting compensation in lieu of the acquisition in favour of the plaintiff instead of defendant No.6. When the notification is being made as is stated specifically in the written statement then practically there cannot be any scope of declaration of title of the plaintiff over the suit land without challenging the notification itself. For payment of compensation, the act itself is a self-contained Act giving all provisions as to how the compensation is to be made by the original owner. For payment of compensation, the act itself is a self-contained Act giving all provisions as to how the compensation is to be made by the original owner. If the rightful owner is deprived of compensation then he had got scope to agitate the matter and the Central government in appropriate case is to constitute a tribunal for the purpose of disbursement of compensation under sec.17 of the Act and there is also a provision of appeal against the decision of the Tribunal before the High Court under Sec.20 of the Act. When once acquisition is made regarding disbursement of compensation and other matters ancilliary to can be decided within the scope of the Act itself and such power has been barred under Sec.26 of the Act of the Civil Courts jurisdiction. It is well settled law that Civil Courts jurisdiction is vast and the same cannot be curtailed unless there is a specific bar put by any other self-contained Act. 4. It is the contention of Mr. N. K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for on behalf of the plaintiff, that such sort of jurisdiction points is mixed question of law and facts and in the present case, the same being a complicated one, the learned court below and committed error of law in deciding this jurisdictional matter when the suit was proceeding for hearing and two witnesses have already been examined for and on behalf of the plaintiff. His further submission is that this jurisdictional point was never raised by the defendant Nos.1 to 5 but the same was only raised by defendant No.6, a private defendant and the same ought not to have been entertained at such belated stage of the suit. Jurisdictional point that too in respect of territorial jurisdiction can be raised by the Court itself even if there is no point being raised from the side of the contesting parties. I do not find any jurisdictional error when the court took up the matter although at a belated stage. 5. Now the point in question is whether a person deprived of compensation for acquisition under the Act is entitled to come to a Civil Court or not. Definitely, the bar put under Sec.26 of the Act deprives the plaintiff from coming with such point. 5. Now the point in question is whether a person deprived of compensation for acquisition under the Act is entitled to come to a Civil Court or not. Definitely, the bar put under Sec.26 of the Act deprives the plaintiff from coming with such point. I have already mentioned that the main purport of the plaint was to get compensation and service of one of the dependants of the plaintiff in lieu of acquisition although the question of title was raised only to bring the suit within the fold of the Civil court. The trick of pleadings and the camouflage of the reliefs are not decisive in the matter but the space of the question or the effect of the reliefs are to be considered to decide the jurisdiction point. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of vatticherukuru Village Panchayat V/s. Nori madhusudan and others, 1991 Supp. (2)Supreme Court Cases 228. In the present case it appears that the reliefs claimed in the suit are nothing but the question as to who is entitled to compensation either the plaintiff or defendant No.6 vis-a-vis as to whose title was there over the acquired land at the time of acquisition and this matter is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the particular tribunal to be set up for the purpose under Sec.17 of the Act. The civil Court can have no jurisdiction as per bar being created under Sec.26 of the Act. The learned court below had rightly held that the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try the plaintiffs suit. It appears from the order of this Court in relation to the present dispute in c. W. J. C. No.1307 of 1990 (R) raised by defendant No.6 regarding payment of compensation that no tribunal was set up for the purpose of deciding compensation as there were no other claimants except defendant No.6. If the plaintiff feels that he has been deprived of getting legitimate right of compensation, then he is at liberty to move the appropriate authorities for setting up of a tribunal u/sec.17 of the Act and if the same is being denied, he can have the liberty to move before an appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance, but it is maintained that the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction for redressal of the grievance of the plaintiff. 6. 6. This civil revision-petition is dismissed having no force with the observation made above, but without costs. Revision Dismissed.