Judgment ( 1. ) PLAINTIFF aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below has filed present appeal by which suit filed by the appellant was dismissed. ( 2. ) THIS appeal was admitted on 7-3-1989 on following substantial questions of law :- (i) "whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in holding that the appellants had the remedy of filing suit challenging the order dated 29-12-1975 under Section 4 of the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 and was not barred under Section 46 of the Act ?" (ii) "whether the suit filed under Section 11 (5) within three months of the publication of the draft statement under Section 11 (4) of the Act was not barred by limitation ?" ( 3. ) THE plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they are the owner of land survey No. 156 total area 21. 36 acre of Village Sontalai, District Harda. The ground of suit is that the aforesaid land belongs to one Kaluji. After the death of Kaluji there were three successors namely Mohanlal, Gangabai and Ramlal. Sunderbai and Nathhibai were already dead at the time of death of Kaluji. It is further contended by the plaintiff that after the death of Kaluji his land was succeeded to legal heirs Mohanlal 43. 66 acre, Gangabai 10. 66 acre and Ramlal 10. 66 acre. In the year 1970 plaintiff entered into an agreement to purchase the suit land from Mohanlal and thereafter sale deed was executed by Mohanlal in his favour. Thereafter ceiling proceedings started against appellant and Mohanlal and it was held that the suit land was transferred by Mohanlal in favour of the appellant to avoid the provisions of M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, ( 4. ) AGAINST the said order plaintiff filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue, but vide order dated 27th of August, 1977 the appeal was dismissed and Board of Revenue held that the transfer of land was made in order to defeat the provisions of the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act and the competent authority has rightly declared the transaction as void. After the decision of Board of Revenue present suit was filed and contested by respondent by filing written statement. Defendant also raised objection in respect of maintainability under Section 46 of M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act. After the decision of Board of Revenue present suit was filed and contested by respondent by filing written statement. Defendant also raised objection in respect of maintainability under Section 46 of M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act. The Trial Court considering the objection raised by the State found that the suit is barred under Section 46 of the Act, but in respect of limitation the objection raised by State was turned down. Consequently the suit of plaintiff was dismissed. During the pendency of the suit Ramlal died and present appellants were brought on record. ( 5. ) APPELLANT aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, preferred an appeal but remained unsuccessful. Aggrieved by which present appeal has been filed. ( 6. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submits that the suit filed by the appellant was maintainable in view of Section 11 (4) as it stood prior to amendment of 1989. Section 11 (3), (4) and (5) which are relevant for decision of this appeal, are as under :- " (3) The draft statement shall be published at such place 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 objection 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 such 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 of the competent authority shall be final and conclusive. " ( 7. ) FROM the perusal of the entire record, it appears that the plaintiff has challenged the order passed by competent authority under Section 4 of the Act, no order under Section 11 (4) was passed by any authority hence there is no question of filing the suit under Sub-section (5) of Section 11 of the Act. The order passed under Section 4 of the Act is final subject to decision in an appeal as envisaged in Sub-section (3) of Section 4. Section 46 of the Act reads as under :-" 46, Bar of Jurisdiction of Civil Courts.--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. ) IN view of the aforesaid, the present suit which was filed by the plaintiff challenging the order of competent authority dated 20-12-1975 and of Board of Revenue dated 27-8-1977 in an appeal under Section 4 (3) of the Act, was barred, and can not be challenged in the civil suit. In the circumstances, the Court below has rightly held that under Section 46 of the Act suit was not maintainable. I do not find any merit in this appeal. This appeal is dismissed. Counsel fee Rs. 2000/- if certified.