This review application was assigned to me by Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 3.2.96 and accordingly this matter was heard by me on 9.10.96. Heard Mr. SN Bhuyan, learned counsel for the review petitioners and Mr. HN Sarma, learned counsel for opposite party. 2. The question of law which is involved in this review application is whether the bar to the jurisdiction of the civil Court as mentioned in section 154 (1) (a) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 is applicable to the facts of the present case. The learned Single Judge by his impugned judgment held that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the same should have been dismissed. Accordingly, he allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment and decree of the Court below and dismissed the suit. 3. The brief facts are as follows : The review petitioner as plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of Mufisiff at B arpeta for declaration of their title in the suit land and delivery of khas possession. The case of the plaintiffs was that they were granted Annual Patta in respect of the suit land in the year 1964-65 and since then they have been in possession of the land, thpugh Annual Patta was not renewed. The grievance of the plaintiffs was that on 15.1.73 and defendants in a body entered in the suit land and dispossessed the plaintiffs claiming their right on the basis of mutation of their names in the Chitha. The plaintiffs thereafter filed a suit claiming relief as indicated above. The suit was contested by the defendants. One of the grounds taken by the defendants was that the civil Court has no juris­diction to try the suit. This plea was based on the provision of section 154 (1) (a) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (hereinafter called Regulation). / The trial Court found inter alia as follows : “The settlement made in favour of the defendants without cancelling the Annual Patta or by issuing a non-renewal notice, cannot affect the rights of the deceased plaintiff in whose name the Annual Patta still stands.” On the basis of this observation, it was held by the trial Court that it has jurisdiction to try the suit. Accordingly, having decided the issue in favour of the plaintiffs, the suit was decreed for declaration of title and recovery of khas possession. The defendants filed an appeal before the Assistant District Judge at Barpeta. The appellate Court also affirmed the decision of the trial Court. It was held by the appellate Court that Annual Patta holder can file a suit for declaration of his right, as, without cancelling the patta or serving any non-renewal notice, no settlement can be granted to any other person in respect of the same land. Aggrieved by the judgment of both the Courts below, second appeal being No.16 of 1979 was filed before this Court only by one defendant ie defendant No.6. Following points were urged before the learned Single Judge of this Court: (1) That the plaintiffs who were Annual Patta holders had no right to file the suit in question and for this proposition the reliance was placed on the following decisions: 1. 1960 Assam LR 239 (Md Masum vs. State of Assam). 2.AIR 1972Gauhati 81(Dinesh Chandra Sardar vs,Harendra Biswas). 3. Second Appeal No. 89 of 1982 (Prodmunya Das Purkayastha vs. Rasendru Kumar Das) decided on 10.7.1990. 4. In the impugned judgment, it was held that clause 3 of the Annual Patta at the highest gives the holder of the patta only the right to get the patta renewed after the expiration of the period of one year, but it does not give him a right in the land. 5. Before we go further, let us have a look at section 154 (1) (a) of the Regulation of 1986. Section 154 (1) (a) of Regulation provides inter alia as follows: No civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction to: “(a) questions as to the validity or effect of any settlement, or as to whether the conditions of any settlement are still in force;” An Annual Patta has been defined in the rules under Regulation as follows: “1. (2) (c). Annual lease means a lease granted for one year only and confers no right in the soil beyond a right of user for the year for which it is given. (2) (c). Annual lease means a lease granted for one year only and confers no right in the soil beyond a right of user for the year for which it is given. It confers no right of transfer or of sub-letting and shall be liable to cancellation for any transfer or sub-letting even during the year of issue : Provided that the State Govt may waive their right to cancel an annual lease and may allow its renewal automatically till such time as the State Govt may direct in those cases which the land is mortgaged to Govt or to a State-sponsored co-operative society.” Clause 3 of the Annual Patta is quoted below : “You shall have no right or title in the Scheduled lands beyond the said period of one year and will not be entitled to compensation except as provided in clauses for growing crops, fruit trees or buildings left standing on the land at the determination of this lease. But unless you or Govt, shall on or before serve on the other side/party with a written notice to the effect that a renewal of the lease is not desired in respect of all or any of the Scheduled lands, this land shall be renewed for another year on such land revenue as Govt may determine. 6. The right acquired by a person under Annual Patta and section 154 (1) (a) have received judicial interpretation of this Court in a number of cases. Before we go to the other cases, let us first take up the case considered by the learned Single Judge. 1.1960 Assam LR 239 (Md Masum vs. State of Assam). That was a case where the defendant Md Masum had an Annual Patta. That patta was cancelled by the Sub Divisional Officer and renewal was refused and the suit was filed for declaration that the plaintiff had the automatic right of renewal to the patta in law and it was in that back ground the Division Bench of this Court pointed out that at the highest clause 3 of the Annual Patta gives him only the right to get the patta renewed after expiration of the period of one year, but it does not give him the right to the land. That was a suit against the State of Assam challenging the action of the State of Assam settling the land with another person. That was a suit against the State of Assam challenging the action of the State of Assam settling the land with another person. The case in hand stands absolutely on a different footing. Here was a case where the plaintiff was in possession of the land by virtue of the Annual Patta which was not cancelled by issuing non-renewal notices as required and the defendant dispossessed the plaintiffs from the land on the strength of a Chitha mutation. So, this case does not support the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants before the learned Single Judge and this case is not an authority for thisproposition that the suit in hand is barred by section 154 (1) (a) of the Regulation of 1886, inasmuch as in the present suit, the validity or effect of the settlement has not been challenged. A bare perusal of the prayer that the plaintiffs' title to the land be declared and recovery of possession be decreed and the Chitha mutation of the defendant be cancelled. No other case was considered by the learned Single Judge on this point. Cases on this point are as follows: 1.1949 1ILR (Assam) 448 (Madha Ram Keot vs. Satya Nath Sarma).That was a decision on a Revenue Appeal when this Court was exercising the appellate jurisdiction on the Revenue side. There the learned Single Judge of this Court after considering the clause 3 of the form of Annual lease, laid down the law as follows : “Under clause 3 of the form of Annual Leases granted under Assam Land and Revenue Regulation (I of 1886) a person who has been granted an Annual Patta in the absence of a notice from the Govt informing him that his patta will not be renewed or a notice from the pattadar himself informing the Govt that he does not wish to have his patta renewed. There does not appear to be any provision of law which enables the Revenue authorities to grant an Annual Patta, to a third party during the pendency of the same Annual Patta, in the absence of special circumstances such as, for instance, where a person to whom an Annual Patta has been granted has quieted the patta land.” In the same volume, there is another decision at page 520, That also was a Revenue Appeal and this Court held that if no non-renewal notice is served, an Annual Patta must be deemed to be in force. 2. (1950) 2 ILR 77 (Prasanna Ram Pathak vs. Balabox Agarwalla). There this Court pointed out as follows : “An Annual Patta, until it is either cancelled or notice of non-renewal given to the patta holder by the authorities concerned, confers good title upon the person to whom the patta is issued. The possession of a person other than the patta holder is irrelevant. His possession might be that of a trespasser or a permissive possession emanating from the patta holder himself, in which case obviously he cannot claim the rights of a patta holder and, claim that the Annual Patta be issued to him.” In the same volume, there is a case at page 434 (Molan Saikia Chaudang vs. The State of Assam). There the contention was that if the withholding of an Annual Patta for the ensuing year amounted to a non-renewal notice and that at the expiry of the year for which the patta was issued, the patta holder would be liable to eviction. That contention was negatived and this Court pointed out as follows: The word “this lease shall be renewed for another year” mean that the patta holder is entitled to a grant of a fresh Annual Patta for the ensuing year. As in this case no non-renewal notices were given by either side, the appellants were entitled to have their leases renewed for another year by grant of a fresh Annual Patta, and the fact that no fresh grant of Annual Pattas had been made to the appellants was wholly immaterial. It therefore followed that upto the end of March 1951, the appellants were entitled to remain in occupation of the lands in question. It therefore followed that upto the end of March 1951, the appellants were entitled to remain in occupation of the lands in question. Upto the end of March, 1951, the appellants could not be evicted, unless their pattas were lawfully cancelled under any of the other provisions of the Regulation.” 3. The Unreported Cases (Assam) 104 (Md Hajat Khan Haji Alias Md Hayat Khan Haji vs. Kandarpa Kumar & others). There the Division Bench of this Court in para 3 pointed out as follows : “The learned counsel has further pointed out that even by the operation of the renewal clause, the rights could continue for another year only and would be lost before the appeal was disposed of. We are not inclined to construe this clause in this way. If the lease is renewed in the absence of a notice intimating the desire of the parties to terminate it, the renewed lease will also have the provision about renewal and should continue to be renewed till it is terminated in the manner provided in para (3) of the lease deed. There is no evidence that the Govt terminated the lease or decided to terminate it.” 4. ILR 1957 (Assam) 437 (Babur Ali vs. Ramgopal Chaudhury). That also was a case by the Division Bench of this Court wherein the question came up whether the plaintiff as had a right to file a suit on the basis of Annual Patta and the Division Bench pointed out inter alia as follows: “The holder of an Annual Patta can legitimately ask for a declaration of his rights in respect of the lands covered by the patta issued to him and renewal of the patta will support his claim for subsequent years unless the patta is lawfully cancelled. Therefore, a suit is competent for a declaration of the rights of the Annual Patta holder on the basis of the terms of the patta itself . (b) There what was really the question between the parties was not the validity or the effect of any settlement or the conditions as to what were the rights of the parties to the land in suit on the basis of the parties issued to them, the civil Court had jurisdiction to go into the merits of the case.” 5. AIR 1950 Assam 107 (Sharmeswar Sarma vs. Lakhyadhar Borgohain). AIR 1950 Assam 107 (Sharmeswar Sarma vs. Lakhyadhar Borgohain). That also is a case by the Division Bench where the question came up regarding jurisdiction of the civil Court to question the validity of the settlement and in para 20 of the judgment, the Division Bench pointed out as follows : “The third contention was raised some what faintly. It was to the effect that following the mutation in defendant's favour a patta was issued in his favour by the Revenue authorities under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation and this patta amounted to a settlement which could not be challenged in a civil Court. Reliance was placed on section 154 (1) (a) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, which debars civil Courts from exercising jurisdiction if questions as to the validity or effect or any settlement or as to whether the conditions of any settlement are still in force are raised. This section comes into operation only if there is no express provision in the Regulation to the contrary. Section 39 of the Regulation is such a provision and affords a complete answer to the contention. This section provides .that no person shall, merely on the ground that a settlement has been made with a him, be deemed to have acquired any right to or over any estate, as against any other person claiming rights to or over that estate. If, therefore, a settlement was granted to the defendants and they had no legal right in the property, it would be competent to the civil Court not only to declare the title of the plaintiff but also to put him in possession by ejectment of the defendant. This was the view taken in AskarMian vs. Sahed AH, 23 CWN 540: (AIR 1918 Calcutta 21) and I entirely agree b with it. It was in view of the language of section 39 of the Regulation and the decision in Askar Mian vs. Sahed AH, 23 CWN 540: (AIR 1918 Calcutta 21), that the learned counsel did not press the point seriously.” 6. AIR 1958 Assam 34 (Boroji Manipurini vs. The State of Assam & others). That also is a Division Bench decision regarding the bar of suit under section 154 of the Regulation of 1886, where in paras 13 and 14 of the judgmental has been pointed out as follows : “13. AIR 1958 Assam 34 (Boroji Manipurini vs. The State of Assam & others). That also is a Division Bench decision regarding the bar of suit under section 154 of the Regulation of 1886, where in paras 13 and 14 of the judgmental has been pointed out as follows : “13. The next point urged by the learned counsel for the respondent was that the suit is barred by provisions of section 154 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation. Section 154 provides as follows : “Except when otherwise expressly provided in this Regulation, or in rules issued under this Regulation, no civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction in any of the following matters: (a) questions as to the validity or effect of any settlement, or as to whether the conditions of any settlement are still in force.” This section is subject to any express provisions of the Regulation. Section 39 of the Land and Revenue Regulation provides that: “Subject to the provisions of section 151 of this Regulation the order of Settlement Officer as to the person to whom a settlement should be offered, the amount of revenue to be assessed, and the nature and term of the settlement to be offered, shall be final, and a settlement concluded with that person shall be binding on all persons from time to time interested in the estate; but, except as provided by sections 35 and 36, no person shall merely on the ground on the ground that a settlement has been made with him or with some person through whom he claims, be deemed to have acquired any right to or over any estate, as against any other person claiming rights to or over that estate.” This section, therefore, clearly lays down that the settlement made in favour of any person will not affect the rights of any other person claiming in respect of the said estate. This is an express provision which will override the provision of section 154 of the Regulation. 14. In the case of Dharmeswar Sarma vs. Lakhyadhor Borgohain, AIR 1950 Assam 107(E), it has been held that section 154 is subject to section 39 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation. Apart from this, the scope of section 154 is not to bar the jurisdiction of the civil Court in suit like the present one. 14. In the case of Dharmeswar Sarma vs. Lakhyadhor Borgohain, AIR 1950 Assam 107(E), it has been held that section 154 is subject to section 39 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation. Apart from this, the scope of section 154 is not to bar the jurisdiction of the civil Court in suit like the present one. What the plaintiff is asking the civil Court to adjudicate upon is her civil right to the diluted property. His contention is that under the law as well as under the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, the disputed property having imperceptibly and gradually accredited to her Dag No.496 has become an addition to her land, it is liable to further assessment; but cannot be a subject matter of a fresh settlement by the State Govt. The question raised in the suit is not one relating to the validity of the settlement, but is a suit based on title and derogation of the settlement in favour of the opposite party Nos 2 to 4. The settlement in favour of the opposite party Nos 2 to 4 is contended to be without jurisdiction by the plaintiff. It is conceded by the respondent that if the appellant had a right to the land under the Bengal Regulation or under the custom, no suit to enforce such right would be barred by the provisions of section 154. No reasonable distinction can be drawn between a suit claiming right to the property on the ground of the provisions of the Bengal Regulation and custom and one based on the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. If the appellant fails to establish her right, her suit may fail on merits. But there is no bar to the maintainability of the suit under section 154.” 7. AIR 1955 NUC 1296 (Assam) (Dandiram Nath & another vs. ` Mihiram Nath Chamua). That also is a case regarding bar of the civil Court under section 154 of the Regulation and the learned Single Judge of this Court pointed out as follows: “If a person has no title to land the mere fact that the land has been distributed or revenue allotted, will not confer any title on him and it would be always open to the civil Court to adjudicate upon the question of title irrespective of the provision of section 154.” 7. On the basis of these decisions of the Division Bench and the Single Bench, it is found that the right of an Annual Patta holder cannot be affected without issuing non-renewal notice and when a valid Annual Patta exists/stands, no further settlement can be made in favour of another person on the simple ground that no land is available for settlement as the settlement has already been made in favour of a person and he is continuing in possession. In order to make a valid settlement in favour of another person during the subsistence of the Annual Patta, first the Annual Patta must be cancelled by issuing non-renewal notice and thereafter only a settlement can be made in favour of a person. If during the subsistence of a patta, a person is dispossessed from the land by a third party claiming that he has been settled with the land by Govt the plaintiff can file a suit for declaration and recovery of possession and in such an event section 154 (1) (a) of the Regulation of 1886 shall not be a bar for the civil Court to try the suit The civil Court shall have the power to try such a suit otherwise it will lead to a chaotic condition. A person may get possession and make a Chitha mutation either through collusion or in any other manner and he will go on enjoying the benefit of such a wrongful action and in such an eventuality the civil Court cannot fold its hands saying that it has no jurisdiction with regard to the matter. That cannot be the object of a civil Court. 8. Mr. HN Sarma, learned counsel for respondents makes a preliminary objection that the judgment in question does not call for any review inasmuch as there is no error apparent on the face of record and if two views are possible on this point the question of reviewing it does not arise. In this particular case as-indicated above, there was error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as the position of law has been settled by this Court in a catena of decisions and that was not taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge and this requires that the matter should be reviewed to state the correct position of law holding the field. In support of his contention, Mr. In support of his contention, Mr. Sarma, learned counsel places reliance on the following decisions: 1. (1987) 2 GLR 226 (Smti Longjam Ongbi Pishak Devi & others vs. Smti Longjam Ongbi Toyaima Devi & others) 2. AIR 1995 SC 455 (Smti Meera Bhanja vs. Smti Nirmala Kumari Choudhury) wherein para 8 of the judgment the Supreme Court pointed out as follows: “The limits to exercise the power of review is limited. Review Court not to act as appellate court.” The Supreme Court further pointed out that “error apparent on the face of record” means an error which strikes one on mere looking at record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. The Supreme Court also pointed out that review Court should reappreciate the evidence and arrive at different findings and if it is done, the review must be deemed to exceed its jurisdiction. But that is not the case in hand. Here in this case review is required inasmuch as the learned Single Judge did not take into consideration the earlier judgments of this Court which settled the law on Annual Patta, the right of an Annual Patta holder and his right to file a suit and the question of bar of jurisdiction under section 154 (1) (a) of Regulation. 9. That being the position, keeping in view the back ground of law as indicated above, I allow this review application by quashing the judgment of the leaned Single Judge passed in Second Appeal No. 16 of 1979, dated 23.7.90 and restore the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in TS No.77 of 1976 by the Munsiff at Barpeta and affirmed by the learned Assistant District Judge at Barpeta in TA 11 of 1976. Review application is accordingly allowed.