T. S. DOABIA, J. ( 1 ) THE circumstances under which this second appeal has come to be filed in this Court be noticed. ( 2 ) THE revenue record indicates that one Maya Bai, was the bhumiswami. Her name is mentioned in column No. 8 in Exhibit D/3. Proceedings were initiated under the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Land was declared surplus. These proceedings were challenged in the Civil Court. The plea taken was that the plaintiff/appellants were members of joint Hindu family. The precise plea taken was that the husband of Maya Bai, was uncle (Tau) of the plaintiffs. It was also pleaded that there was partition between the family and on account of that partition, they had become bhumiswamies. It was further pleaded that they were not aware of the proceedings initiated under the Act referred to above, and therefore, any declaration made declaring the land in the hands of Maya Bai as surplus is bad. ( 3 ) THE Court below has recorded the following findings : (i) that, the suit has been filed after the period of limitation; and (ii) that, Maya Bai was the owner and the plea set up regarding partition has not been proved. After recording the aforementioned findings, the suit was dismissed, by the trial Court. An appeal was preferred. The appeal was also dismissed. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the State has raised another objection also. This objection is to the effect that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in the matter. ( 5 ) THE question as to whether the findings recorded by the Court below requires to be given fresh look and the question as to whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the matter would be examined. ( 6 ) THE scheme of the Act of 1960 referred to above is as under;under Section 11 (3) of the Act, a draft statement is required to be published at such places and in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof is to be served on the holder and all other persons interested in the land. If any question of title arises; two eventualities are contemplated under Section 11 (4) of the Act. If any question of title arises; two eventualities are contemplated under Section 11 (4) of the Act. The first eventuality indicates that in case a title dispute is pending then the competent authority under Section 11 (3) of the Act shall await the decision of the Civil Court. In the second eventuality, in case no dispute is pending in the Civil Court the matter would be decided summarily leaving the aggrieved party to challenge the order so passed under Section 11 (4) of the Act before the Civil Court. See Section 11 (5) of the Act. Section 46 of the Act lays down that Civil Court shall not have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any matter dealt with by the competent authority. The only exception carved out under this section is that this bar shall not apply where there is an express provision to the contrary. ( 7 ) BEFORE dealing with matter further, Sections 11 (3), (4), (5) and 46 of the Act (as it existed before Act 8 of 1989) be noticed. These read as under :"11. Preparation of statement of land held in excess of the ceiling area.-** ** ** (3) The draft statement shall be published at such places and in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof shall be served on the holder or holders concerned, the creditors and all other persons interested in the land to which it relates. Any objections to the draft statement received within thirty days of the publication thereof shall be duly considered by the competent authority who after giving the objector an opportunity of being heard shall pass order as it deems fit. (4) If while considering the objections received under sub-section (3) or otherwise, the competent authority finds that any question has arisen regarding the title of a particular holder and such question has not already been determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction the competent authority shall proceed to enquire summarily into the merits of such question and pass such orders as it thinks fit :provided that if such question is already pending for decision before a competent Court the competent authority shall await the decision of the Court. (5) The order of the competent authority under sub-section (4) shall not be subject to appeal or revision, but any party may, within three months from the date of such order institute a suit in the Civil Court to have the order set aside, and the decision of such Court shall be binding on the competent authority, but subject to the result of such suit if any, the order to the competent authority shall be final and conclusive. ""46. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court.-Save as expressly provided in this Act, no Civil Court shall have any jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the competent authority. " ( 8 ) A bare reading of Section 46 of the Act indicates that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been expressly barred except with regard to two cases regarding which exceptions have been carved out. One such exception is visualised by Section 11 (5) of the Act. When an order is passed by the competent authority under Section 11 (4) of the Act, then that order can be challenged under Section 11 (5) of the Act. ( 9 ) IN the present case, no order has been passed under Section 11 (4) of the Act, therefore, the question of applicability of Section 11 (5) of the Act, would not arise. On a plain reading of Sections 11 (4), (5) and 46 of the Act, it has to be concluded that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on a decision given by this Court in the case reported as Jagat Singh v. State of M. P. , 1982 Jab LJ 609. It be seen that in the above case, there was a litigation pending in the civil side. The original holders had filed a suit against the appellant. In this situation it was held that the appellant being in possession for more than twelve years, had acquired some rights. The objections filed by appellant/plaintiff were rejected by the competent authority. This was noticed in para 3 of the judgment. The original holders had filed a suit against the appellant. In this situation it was held that the appellant being in possession for more than twelve years, had acquired some rights. The objections filed by appellant/plaintiff were rejected by the competent authority. This was noticed in para 3 of the judgment. If this be the position, then against the decision given by the competent authority deciding the question of title, a remedy in the Civil Court would become available and it was under these circumstances, this Court expressed a definite opinion that the suit filed under Section 11 (5) of the Act is maintainable, and plea of limitation would not be attracted. ( 11 ) THUS; in Jagat Singh's case (1982 Jab LJ 609) (supra), the objections as to ownership were raised and after those objections were decided, then a suit was filed. The above is not the situation in the present case. The plaintiffs never filed any objections. They did not raise any objection which may said to be covered by Section 11 (4) of the Act, and therefore, the applicability of Section 11 (5), would not arise. The Civil Court would have no jurisdiction in view of the proceedings contained in Section 46 of the Act. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the objection raised by the State is valid. ( 12 ) APART from the above, the Court below has come to the conclusion that the plea set up by the present appellants that there was partition was not established. For this, reliance was placed on the documents and more particularly, exhibit D/3, in which the land was shown to be in the ownership of Maya Bai. Thus, looking from any point of view, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The appellants may if any remedy is available to them under the Act, pursue the same. ( 13 ) AS indicated above, this appeal is found to be without merit and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .