This appeal arises from the judgment and decree 31st May, 1983 and 23.6.1983 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, South Tripura District, Udaipur in Title Appeal No.31 of 1982 dismissing the appeal, thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 20th August, 1982 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur, in Title SuitNo.12 of 1976. 2. Heard Shri S. Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri A. Deb, learned Advocate for the appellants and also Shri PK Majumder, learned counsel assisted by Shri M. Majumder, learned Advocate, for the respondents. 3. The facts of the case in a short compass are as follows: A suit being Title Suit No. 12 of 1976 was originally instituted by late Bipin Behari Dutta on 26.10,1976. After the death of Bipin Bihari Dutta, the present respondents (plaintiffs) were brought on record as legal representatives of the said original plaintiff, namely, Bipin Bihari Dutta. The said suit was dismissed by the judgment delivered on 11.3.1981 by the then Subordinate Judge, South Tripura District Udaipur. On appeal under Appeal No.20 of 1981, the learned District Judge, South Tripura District, Udaipur allowed the appeal and remanded the suit for retrial. In the light of the observations made in the said judgment, two additional issues were framed by the learned Subordinate Judge, South Tripura District, Udaipur, and fresh evidence of both the parties were recorded. The plaintiffs (respondents) suit is for declaration of title, recovery of khas possession and for mesne profits. The plaintiffs claimed that they are owners of the suit land as they are legal heirs of late Bipin Bihari Dutta, the original plaintiff. Originally late Chandra Kumar Dutta, the father of the original plaintiff now deceased, was the owner in possession of Jote No. 1 in Mouja Bagafa, PS Belonia within South Tripura and after his death the land in Jote No. 1 vested upon his 3 sons and the original plaintiff was one of the said 3 sons. The land of Jote No.l were partitioned amongst the said three sons and, accordingly, three new Jotes were created for the share each of them. The new Jote No.243 was created in respect of the land which is the share of the original plaintiff. The original plaintiff was in possession of the suit land till he was dispossessed by the defendants (appellants) on 1.4.1966 AD. The new Jote No.243 was created in respect of the land which is the share of the original plaintiff. The original plaintiff was in possession of the suit land till he was dispossessed by the defendants (appellants) on 1.4.1966 AD. The defendants appellants fraudulently in collusion with the staff of settlement managed to prepare Korfa Khatian showing therein the names of the defendants as Korfa Tenants of the suit land. The original" plaintiff filed two other suits namely, Title Suit No. 14 of 1966 and Title Suit Np.7 of 1967 for the other lands of Jote No.243 for similar reliefs. The said two suits were decreed in favour of the original plaintiff. The present suit is for declaration of jote right of the plaintiffs (respondents) and also for recovery of possession of the suit land, for mesne profits thereof and for correction of Korfa Khatian prepared during the survey operation in respect of the suit land. 4. The suit was resisted by-the defendants-appellants by filing written statement containing inter alia, that the original plaintiff being unable to cultivate the suit land settled the same with the defendants-appellants as Korfa tenants for rents firstly and the defendants possessed the suit land as Korfa tenants under the original plaintiff paying rent at different rates. Thus, the defendants have become rayati tenants of the suit land under section 126 of the TLR and LR Act and are paying the rent of the suit land to the Government of Tripura. They also paid compensation under section 126 of the said Act. The defendants further contended that either the original or the present plaintiffs (respondents) have no right title or interest in the suit land. 5. On the pleadings of both the parties, the learned Subordinate Judge, framed as many as 9 issues at the first instance and thereafter two additional issues which are quoted below : 1. Has the suit been properly valued and adequate Court fees been paid ? 2. Have the plaintiffs any right, title and interest in the suit land ? 3. Is the suit maintainable ? 4. Is the suit barred by the provisions of TLR and LR Act ? 5. Is the suit barred by limitation ? 6. Are the plaintiffs entitled to declaration as prayed for ? 7. Are the plaintiffs entitled to recover possession of the suit property ? 8. 3. Is the suit maintainable ? 4. Is the suit barred by the provisions of TLR and LR Act ? 5. Is the suit barred by limitation ? 6. Are the plaintiffs entitled to declaration as prayed for ? 7. Are the plaintiffs entitled to recover possession of the suit property ? 8. Are the plaintiffs entitled to mesne profits as claimed : If so, to what extent ? 9. To what relief, if any, the parties are entitled ? Additional Issues: 1. Whether the defendants are Bargadars or whether they are trespassers on the suit land ? 2. Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the. suit land till middle of Baishak 1373 BS corresponding to last part of April, 1966." 6. The parties adduced evidence before the learned Subordinate Judge, in support of their respective cases. After hearing the parties, the learned Subordinate Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur decided almost all the issues in favour of the plaintiff-respondents except issue No.8 and decreed the suit on contest without costs declaring the plaintiffs' right, title and interest in the suit land and also entitling the plaintiffs-respondents to recover khas possession of the suit land by evicting the defendants-appellants from the suit land and also causing correction of Korfa Khatians Nos.45/46/47/48/61 and 50 as described in the Schedule of the plaint. However, the prayer for mesne profits as prayed for by the plaintiffs-respondents was rejected. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Title Suit No. 12 of 1976, the present appellants/defendants preferred an appeal. The said appeal was registered as Title Appeal No.31 of 1982 of the Court of District Judge, South Tripura District, Udaipur. The plaintiffs-respondents also preferred a cross appeal being Title Appeal (Cross) No.34 of 1982 from the impugned judgment and decree rejecting the prayer for mesne profits as claimed by them. Both the appeals were heard and disposed of by a common judgment and decree dated 31.5.1983 and 23.6.1983 passed by the learned District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Title Appeal No.31 of 1982 and Title Appeal (Cross) No.34 of 1982. 8. Both the appeals were heard and disposed of by a common judgment and decree dated 31.5.1983 and 23.6.1983 passed by the learned District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Title Appeal No.31 of 1982 and Title Appeal (Cross) No.34 of 1982. 8. Shri S. Deb, learned senior counsel for the appellants at the very outset submits that the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs-respondents being for a declaration that the appellants-defendants herein are not Korfa under the plaintiffs-respondents, the suit is not maintainable inasmuch as the reliefs and the related procedures being provided for adjudication under the special Act, namely, Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as TLR and LR Act). Shri S. Deb, further submits that the jurisdiction of the civil Court is ousted in view of the 5th Amendment Act of 1979 (TLR and LR Act). Shri Deb, further submits that the notification under section 26 of the TLR and LR Act having been issued directing the Revenue Survey of Santi Bazar area with a view to settlement of the land revenue and to the preparation of a record of right connected therewith or the revision of any existing settlement of record of right of the said area having been published after the enforcement of the said 5th Amendment Act, 1979, no civil Court shall either entertain any suit or application to which the record of right relates and if any such suit or application stands the same shall be stayed and shall on the expiry of the period of filing application for revision under section 45 or when such revision has been filed within time on expiry of the period of limitation for filing an appeal or when such an appeal has been filed, as the case may be, on disposal of such appeal, abate so far it relates to any of the aforesaid matters. Shri Deb,.further contended that as the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents relates to the question connected with the preparation and finality of the record of right as required to be settled under section 26 of the TLR and LR Act, the suit ought to have been stayed in view of the provisions of section 26 of law contemplated under section 26 of the Act. Learned senior counsel Mr.S. Deb, further submits that both the Courts below acted in manifest error in overriding the statutory provision of law contemplated under section 26 read with section 44 of the TLR and LR Act while passing the impugned judgment and decree. 9. On the other hand Shri PK Majumder, learned counsel for the respondents (plaintiffs) submits that the said 5th Amendment Act cannot take away the jurisdiction of the Court vested by the original Act (TLR and LR Act). He submits that in the previous appeal decided by the learned District Judge, South Tripura District, Udaipur it was held that the suit was maintainable and at that time the 5th Amendment Act of 1979 was in force, and that the present defendants-appellants did not prefer any second appeal against the said decision made by the learned first appellate Court, therefore, the appellants are not entitled to urge that the suit is not maintainable. Mr. Majumder, further contended that the whole appeal is abated because of the death of the appellant No. 1. In this regard, Mr. Majumder, relied on many decisions of the Supreme Court including the decision reported in AIR 1962 SC 89 (State of Punjab vs. Nathuram). This issue relating to abatement was taken up by the Court on 31.8.1994 and this Court had made observation to the extent that the contention of Mr. Majumder that the appeal is abated as a whole cannot be accepted vide order dated 31.8.1994 passed in this second appeal. 10. Before going to the merit of the case as a whole I hereby propose to give a finding on the following substantial question of law formulated by this Court on 6.9.83. The said substantial question of law is quoted below : "(a) Whether the civil Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter involved in the suit ?" 11. The original Court in paragraph 10 of its judgment, the following observations has been made : "I have perused the judgment dated 2.7.81 of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench in Misc First Appeal No.7 of 1976. Their Lordships in the said misc appeal observed that "under section 26 of the Act a notification has been issued by the Government on 16.3.1978 announcing that a revenue survey of the area specified in Schedule of the notification shall be made with a view to the revision of the record of rights. Their Lordships in the said misc appeal observed that "under section 26 of the Act a notification has been issued by the Government on 16.3.1978 announcing that a revenue survey of the area specified in Schedule of the notification shall be made with a view to the revision of the record of rights. The area in which the suit property is situated, £ namely, Udaipur Revenue Circle of Udaipur Sub Division, South Tripura District, falls under this notification and as such, the suit which is pending in the Court of the Sub-Judge must be deemed to have been stayed with effect from 16.3.1978 under the provision of section 44 of the Act, as amended upto July, 1979. "There is no evidence on record that any notification under section 26 was/is issued concerning the area of the suit land after enforcement of the 5th Amendment, 1979 to oust the c jurisdiction of this Court and consequently to stay the trial of the suit. So, I find no reasons in the contention of Shri S. Deb, the learned Advocate for the defendants. The issue No.4 is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiffs." 12. The above observations of the learned Subordinate Judge, South Tripura Distric, Udaipur was affirmed by the first appellate Court i.e. the learned District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur by holding that the notification in question does " not come under the purview of section 57 of the Evidence Act and that the notification does not satisfy the requirement of section 57 of the Evidence Act, and as such, the said notification requires to be proved though the same may be public document in the manner as enshrined in section 78 of the Evidence Act. 13. From the records it is found that a notification under section 26 of the TLR and LR Act, has been issued by the Government on 13.9.79 announcing that a Revenue Survey of the area specified in Schedule of the notification shall be made with a view to revision of record of rights. The area in which the suit property is situated, namely, Santibazar Revenue Circle of Belonia Sub Division, South Tripura District, falls under the said notification. The area in which the suit property is situated, namely, Santibazar Revenue Circle of Belonia Sub Division, South Tripura District, falls under the said notification. It is found that the present original suit being Title Suit No. 12 of 1976 has been pending in the Court of f Subordinate Judge, South Tripura District, Udaipur at the time when the said notification was issued. In this connection, the learned Subordinate Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur held that there is no evidence on record that any notification under section 26 was/is issued concerning the area of the suit land after enforcement of the 5th Amendment 1976 to oust the jurisdiction of the Court. However, the learned counsel for the appellants in the Court' ': w, only referred g to the judgment passed by this Court; Agartala Bench, in Misc Appeal No.7 of 1976 in support of his contention that by the provision contemplated under section 144 and 188 of the TLR and LR Act (an amended upto July, 1979) made a bar on the jurisdiction of the civil Court to try the suit after publication of notification under section 26 of the Act. 14. The appellants contended before the first appellate Court that after the h enforcement of the Amended Act in the year 1979 a notification was published in the Gazette of October, 1979 Extra Ordinary issue stating that a revenue survey of some areas specified in the notification would be made. In the Schedule, the fourth item is Santi Bazar Revenue Circle of Belonia Sub Division under South Tripura District and that the suit land of the present suit appertains to Santi Bazar Revenue Circle of Belonia Sub Division of South Tripura District. This contention that the suit land appertains to Santi Bazar Revenue Circle of Belonia Sub Division has not been opposed from the side of the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellants has produced the said Gazette notification dated 1st October, 1979 before this Court as well before the first appellate Court. The copy of the notification is hereby formed part of record of this case. In order to appreciate the real proposition of law in the matter, the said notification published in the Gazette on 1st October, 1979 is hereby reproduced : "Government of Tripura, Revenue Department N0.176-78/F.1 (24) DIRS/ESH/78 dated, Agartala, the 13th September, 1979. The copy of the notification is hereby formed part of record of this case. In order to appreciate the real proposition of law in the matter, the said notification published in the Gazette on 1st October, 1979 is hereby reproduced : "Government of Tripura, Revenue Department N0.176-78/F.1 (24) DIRS/ESH/78 dated, Agartala, the 13th September, 1979. TLR R Form 3 See Rule 39 Notification: It is hereby notified for general information under Rule 39 of the Tripura Land Revenue Reforms Rules, 1961 read with section 26 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 that a revenue survey of area specified in the Schedule below shall be made with a view to revision of record of rights. Schedule 1. Manu Revenue Circle of Kailashhar Sub Division, under North Tripura District. 2. Khowai Revenue Circle of Khowai Sub Division under West Tripura District. 3. Subroom Revenue Circle of Subroom Sub Division under South Tripura District. 4. Santi Bazar Revenue Circle of Belonia Sub Division under South Tripura District. By order of the Governor NG Sur, Under Secretary to the Govt of Tripura." 15. The first appellate Court after hearing the parties held that no notification was placed before the learned Subordinate Judge, South Tripura District, Udaipur in connection with the present suit. In absence of any notification under section 26 of the Act, the unamended provision of section 44 of the TLR and LR Act remains effective. However, the learned first appellate Court made a finding in paragraph 14 of its judgment to the extent that at the time of argument, the learned lawyer of the appellants refers him to a notification published in the Gazatteon 1st October, 1979. 16. Section 26 of the TLR and LR Act contemplates that "whenever the State Government thinks it expedient so to do, he may, by notification in the Official Gazette direct the revenue survey of any local area with a view to the settlement of the land revenue and to the preparation of a record of rights connected therewith or the revision of any existing settlement or record of rights." 17. Unamended section 44 of the TLR and LR Act, 1960 provides that "the civil Courts shall have jurisdiction to decide any dispute to which the Government is not a party relating to any right or entry which is recorded in the record of rights. 18. Unamended section 44 of the TLR and LR Act, 1960 provides that "the civil Courts shall have jurisdiction to decide any dispute to which the Government is not a party relating to any right or entry which is recorded in the record of rights. 18. By the 5th Amendment Act, 1979 the provisions of section 44 of the Act went a drastic change. The new section 44 reads as follows : "44. (1) When a notification under section 26~directing the revenue survey of any local area with a view to settlement of the land revenue and to the preparation of a record-of-rights connected therewith or the revision of any existing settlement or record-of-rights in any local area has been published after the enforcement of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1979, no civil Court shall entertain any suit or application for the settlement or determination of land revenue or the incidence of any tenancy to which the record-of-rights relates, and if any suit or application, in which any of the aforesaid matters is in issue, is pending before a civil Court on the date of publication of the notification in the Official Gazette, it shall be stayed and it shall, on the expiry of the period for filing application for revision under section 45, or when such application has been filed within time on expiry of the period prescribed under section 94 for filing an appeal under section 93 against the order disposing of such application or when an j appeal has been filed under the section within time, as the case may be, on disposal of such appeal, abate so far as it relates to any of the aforesaid matters. (2) No civil Court shall entertain any suit or application concerning any land if it relates to alteration of any entry in the record-of-rights finally published, revised, corrected or modified under any of the provisions of this Chapter or Chapter VIII of this Act consequently upon the notification issued under section 26 after the enforcement of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1979." 19. From the plain reading of the newly amended section 44 of the TLR and LR Act, it is established principles of law that when a notification under section 26 has been published directing the revenue survey of any local area with a view to settlement of land revenue and to the preparation of a record-of-rights connected therewith or the revision of any existing settlement or record-of-rights in any local area, no civil Court shall entertain any suit or application for the settlement or determination of land revenue or the incidence of any tenancy to which the record-of-rights relates, and if any suit or application, in which any of the aforesaid matters is in issue, is pending before a civil Court on the date of publication of the notification in the Official Gazette, it shall be stayed. By section 44 (2) makes a bar upon the civil Court to entertain any suit or application concerning any land if it relates to alteration of any entry in the record-of-rights finally published, revised, corrected or modified under any of the provisions, of Chapter V or Chapter VIII of the TLR and LR Act consequent upon the notification issued under section 26 after the enforcement of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Fifth Amendment Act, 1979). 20. In the present case, the publication of a notification under section 26 of the TLR and LR Act relating to a revenue survey of Santi Bazar Revenue Circle of Belonia Sub Division under South Tripura District has not been opposed by the plaintiffs-respondents and that such publication exists. The said notification published in Gazette on 1st October, 1979 was also referred to the first appellate Court by the counsel for the appellants-respondents. The factum of issuance and publication of the said notification under section 26 of the TLR and LR Act by the Government finds its place in paragraph 13, 14 of the judgment of the learned first appellate Court. Now, the question is whether this Court can take judicial notice of the said notification issued by the authority concerned under section 26 of the TLR and LR Act. 21. Now, the question is whether this Court can take judicial notice of the said notification issued by the authority concerned under section 26 of the TLR and LR Act. 21. In this connection I hereby refer to a case between State of Bombay & another vs. FN Balsara reported in AIR 1951 SC 318 in which the Apex Court held that an .order made by the provincial Government in exercise of the power conferred by section 139 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, owes its legal efficacy to this section, and, therefore, in the eye of law, the notification has the force of law as if made by the legislature itself. 22. In another case between Kailash Nath & another vs. State of UP & others reported in AIR 1957 SC 790 , the Supreme Court held that "the notification having been made in accordance with the power conferred by statute has statutory force and validity. In that case, the Uttar Pradesh Government on 3.12.1949 issued a notification No.ST-6499-X-901 (20) 48, that with effect from 1.12.1949 the provision of section 3 of the Act (relating to the levy of sales tax) shall not apply to the sales of cotton cloth or yarn manufactured in Uttar Pradesh, made on or after 1.12.1949, with a view to export such cloth or yarn outside the territories of India on the condition that the cloth or yarn is actually exported and proof of such actual export is furnished. This notification having been made in accordance with the power conferred by the statute has statutory force and validity and therefore, the exemption is as if it is contained in the parent Act itself. The question for decision in this petition is whether the petitioners are entitled to avail themselves of this exemption and whether therefore the levy of tax is illegal." The Supreme Court observed that there can be no question about the exemption clause not applying to do, and if the exemption applies then the tax has been levied without jurisdiction. The disputed levy of sales tax in the year 1953-54 is not according to law and to that extent the levy of tax is hereby quashed. 23. The disputed levy of sales tax in the year 1953-54 is not according to law and to that extent the levy of tax is hereby quashed. 23. In a case between Union of India vs. Nihar Kanta Sen & others reported in (1987) 3 SCC 465, the Apex Court in paragraph 7 of its judgment observed that the notification issued are published in the Gazette, the High Court should have taken judicial notice of the same. In that case a notification was issued by the competent authority under section 4 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. High Court refused to consider the relevant question on the ground that copies of relevant notification issued under section 4 were not on record. The State had filed copies of relevant notice before the High Court as additional evidence but the High Court refused to accept the same. 24. For the reasons state above, I am of the view that the said notification dated 13.9.79 under section 26 of the TLR and LR Act, has been made in accordance with the power conferred by the statute and as such the said notification has statutory force and the validity of it and, therefore, the matters relating to a revenue survey of Santibazar Revenue Circle of Belonia Sub Division under South Tripura District appertaining the suit land is as if it is contained in the parent Act (TLR and LR Act) itself. In other words, the said notification under section 26 of the TLR and LR Act published in the Gazatte dated 1.10.1979 has the force of law as if made by the legislature itself. 25. By a Division Bench of this Court also made an exhaustive finding with regard to proposition of law contemplated under section 44 of the TLR and LR Act (5th Amendment Act), 1979 by its judgment and order dated 2.7.1981 passed in Misc First Appeal No.7 of 1976 between Hari Bhusan Paul & others vs. Chittaranjan Majumder & others. In that case, a notification under section 26 of the Act has been issued by the Government on 16.3.1978 announcing that a revenue survey of the area specified in the Schedule of the notification shall be made with a view to a revision of the records-of-rights. In that case, a notification under section 26 of the Act has been issued by the Government on 16.3.1978 announcing that a revenue survey of the area specified in the Schedule of the notification shall be made with a view to a revision of the records-of-rights. The area in which the said suit property is situated, namely, Udaipur Revenue Circle of Udaipur Sub Division, South Tripura District falls under the said notification and the suit which was pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge must be deemed to have been stayed with effect from 16.3.1978 under the provisions of section 44 of the Act as amended up to July,-1979. This being the position, any order or any step done in connection with the said suit otherwise than by way of staying the suit stands ineffective with effect from 16.3.1978, the Division Bench of this Court held. 26. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that no order by way of proceeding can be passed regarding the suit (TS 12 of 1976) on and from 13.9.1979 by virtue of the said notification under section 26 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, published on 1st October, 1979 in the Official Gazette; Extraordinary issue which I took judicial notice of it. Hence, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is inoperative. The first appellate Court ought to have taken the judicial notice of the said notification dated 13.9.1979 and passed appropriate order in the matter as per provisions of law contemplated under section 44 of the TLR and LR Act (5th Amendment Act, 1979). 27. In the result, this second appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court is set aside. No costs.