JUDGMENT U.C. Maheshwari, J. This judgment shall also govern the Second Appeal No. 315/1991 filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh as the same is arising out of the same judgment and decree of the subordinate appellate Court. The appellants/defendants No. 6 to 14 have preferred this appeal u/s 100 of CPC being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12-3-1991 passed by Additional District Judge Panna in Civil Regular Appeal No. 22-A/1989 reversing the judgment and decree dated 5-4-1989 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Ajaigarh District Panna in Civil Original Suit No. 19-A/1987. The appellant of S.A. No. 315/91 is said hereinafter referred as respondent No. 6 and respondent No. 7 to 14 are said as appellant while respondent No. 1 the plaintiff is said as respondent No. 1. The material facts of this appeal are that the respondent No. 1 being plaintiff has filed a suit for partition and possession against appellants and respondent No. 2 to 6 in respect of agricultural land total Survey No. 6 area 109.36 acres situated in Village Kamre-ka-Bara Tahsil Ajaygarh, the same was recorded in the revenue record in the name of respondent No. 2 Mohan, the grand father of respondent No. 1, beside this the land total Survey No. 10 area 10.518 hectares situated in the same village, recorded as Bhoomiswami in the name of respondent along with his brothers Chandrabhan, Jugal, Lallu and Prabhu, the same was partitioned and respondent No. 2 has got the share for his branch. As per other pleadings the land being ancestral property was remained recorded in the name of respondent No. 2 as Karta of joint family. The respondent No. 1 has asked his father respondent No. 3 and grandfather respondent No. 2 for separation of his share and possession from the aforesaid land. Respondent No. 2 agreed to give him six hectares land in his share while he was entitled for nine hectares of land. On asking he was told that some of the land has been declared surplus and taken over by the State Government under the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (in short 'the Act') and the same has been allotted to the appellants. On asking he was told that some of the land has been declared surplus and taken over by the State Government under the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (in short 'the Act') and the same has been allotted to the appellants. Earlier it was not known to him as he was not informed by respondent No. 2 though the then he was major, married and had his own family with his one son and entitled for 54 acres of land for his unit but due to ignorance and inadvertence of respondent No. 2 his right was not considered by the competent authority under the Act. Such proceedings of the Act is not binding against him. In any case respondent No. I has a right to get 9 hectares land by holding the partition of the same and prayed for 1/5 share in it and filed the suit as said above. Respondent No. 6 State of Madhya Pradesh being defendants No. 1 has not filed any written statement in the case. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have admitted all the averments of respondent No. 1 as made in the plaint. The appellants No. 1 to 8 being defendants No. 6 to 13 have filed their joint written statement while appellant No. 9 being defendant No. 14 has filed his separate written statement, in both of them the averments made by respondent No. 1 in the plaint have been denied. According to them at present the land is not recorded in the name of Mohan, some of the land of respondent No, 2 after holding surplus in ceiling proceedings by competent authority was vested in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Subsequently, the same was allotted to appellant No. 1 to 8 under the right of Bhumiswami, out of which appellant No. 8 has sold his land to appellant No. 9. The respondent No. 1 has no authority to get this land in partition as it was a self acquired property of respondent No. 2 and the same have been allotted to them as per prescribed procedure. During pendency of ceiling proceedings respondent No. I being minor was covered by the branch of respondent No. 3 for whose unit the land was left under said proceedings, thus, he may get his share from that only. During pendency of ceiling proceedings respondent No. I being minor was covered by the branch of respondent No. 3 for whose unit the land was left under said proceedings, thus, he may get his share from that only. The said, ceiling proceeding was held in accordance with law within the knowledge of respondent No. 1 and the same was not challenged or objected by him at any point of time. Thus, the order of competent authority has become final and binding against respondent No. 1. According to respondent No. 1 the entire land was remained as Bhumiswami in the name of respondent No. 2, Mohan. Thus, in the lack of prayer for declaration of title the suit is not maintainable. After allotment of the land to the appellant they have developed the same by spending a huge amount and also dug a well and installed motor pump for irrigation. The suit is filed under the conspiracy with respondent No. 2 to 5, the family members of respondent No. 1, the same is also barred by time and prayed for dismissal of the suit. The respondent No. 2 to 5 after filing their written statement were absent, thus the case was proceeded ex parte against them. In spite of notice no one appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 6, the State, thus he was also proceeded ex parte. The trial Court has framed the issues and recorded the evidence. On appreciation of it the suit was dismissed saying that the order of competent authority declaring the surplus land and allotment in favour of appellants was in accordance with law. The land was held as self acquired property of respondent No. 2 in which respondent No. 1 had no right to claim the partition. The suit was also held not maintainable on two counts that the same is barred by limitation and not maintainable against the proceedings of the Act for want of jurisdiction. The same was challenged by respondent No. 1 in appeal before the subordinate appellate Court, where by setting aside the said decree the suit of respondent No. 1 was decreed against the appellants. The same was challenged by respondent No. 1 in appeal before the subordinate appellate Court, where by setting aside the said decree the suit of respondent No. 1 was decreed against the appellants. Hence, this appeal was preferred, the same was admitted on following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the first appellate Court erred in law in finding that the order dated 19-9-1975 passed by the competent authority under the provisions of the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, vesting of the alleged excess land of 30.56 acres in the State, was null and void? (2) Whether, otherwise also, the first appellate Court erred in law in failing to appreciate that the suit in question filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was barred by limitation and as such no decree as prayed for by him could be granted to him? Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment the respondent No. 6 State of Madhya Pradesh has also filed a Second Appeal No. 315/91. The same was also admitted on the aforesaid identical substantial questions of law. Shri Avinash Patel, Learned Counsel for the appellants has justified the proceedings held under the Act and submitted that the order passed by the competent authority to declare the land of respondent No. 2 as surplus was within the scope of the Act. According to him at the time of such proceedings the respondent No. 1 being minor was the member of the unit of respondent No. 3 his father. The same was mentioned in the return filed by the respondent No. 2 as holder. He was duly informed by the competent authority regarding draft statement issued u/s 11(3) of the Act. Subsequent to it such holder or respondent No. 1 being co-parcener of such family has not filed any objection, hence the disputed land was declared to be surplus land by the competent authority vide order dated 19-9-1975. Such order could have been challenged in the Civil Court within three months from the date of order as per section 11(5) of the Act (as it was existed on that day) and amended provisions of it are not applicable to the present case. It is an admitted fact that the suit was not filed by respondent No. 1 or any other member of the family within aforesaid period. It is an admitted fact that the suit was not filed by respondent No. 1 or any other member of the family within aforesaid period. The notice of ceiling proceeding to the respondent No. 1 at any stage was not required. According to the provision of section 9 of the Act, holder of the land was bound to submit his return and the same was filed by respondent No. 2 as holder defined u/s 2(h) of the Act. Thus, all subsequent proceedings drawn up by the competent authority under notice to such holder was sufficient compliance of the provision. The respondent No. 1 had not filed any return, hence, the competent authority was not bound to issue the draft statement to respondent No. 1. In support of his argument he has placed his reliance on a decided case of Apex Court in the matter of Smt. Sooraj and others Vs. S.D.O., Rchli and others, and a decided case of this Court in the matter of Datar Singh vs. State of M.P. and others, reported in 1997(2) MPLJ 393 . He has also submitted that the suit was filed only for partition and possession of the property without any prayer to declare the said order dated 19-9-1975 as ab initio void. Thus, in the absence of it, the order remained in existence and appellant was not entitled to get any relief without setting aside the said order. It is also said that before filing any suit against the State of Madhya Pradesh in respect of the land related to ceiling proceeding the notice u/s 80 of CPC is condition precedent and in the lack of it the permission of the Court u/s 80(2) of CPC is required for filing the same. Both the provisions have not been complied with by the respondent No. 1. Thus, on account of this also the suit was not maintainable. It was also submitted that as per provision of section 11(5) of the Act the then, suit should have been filed within three months from the date of order and there was no provision for extending the time. Beside this, no explanation has been given by the appellant regarding delay in filing the suit at belated stage. The present suit filed on 25-8-1987, i.e. after more than 11 years from the order of competent authority, hence it was barred by limitation. Beside this, no explanation has been given by the appellant regarding delay in filing the suit at belated stage. The present suit filed on 25-8-1987, i.e. after more than 11 years from the order of competent authority, hence it was barred by limitation. One more submission was advanced by him that the question of title as mentioned in section 11(4) of the Act was not in dispute. Therefore by virtue of section 46 of the Act the suit was not maintainable and prayed for answering the question accordingly in favour of the appellant by restoring the decree of the trial Court and setting aside the decree of appellate Court. On the other hand Shri R.K. Verma, Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that he was not informed by the competent authority at any stage regarding Ceiling proceeding. While in any circumstance he should have been informed regarding draft statement issued u/s 11(3) of the Act to enable him for filing the objection one of the holder of the land along with respondent Nos. 2 and 3. In this regard he has submitted that the definition of the holder u/s 2(h) should be read with the provision of section 6 of the Act in which the provision for entitlement to the share in joint Hindu family land has been enacted and also with section 9 of the Act in which the principle regarding return have been enacted. According to this, the respondent 1 was also one of the holders. In this regard he also referred section 11(3) of the Act. According to it respondent No. 1 being holder of the land should have been informed as said above. Such provisions have not been complied with and competent authority has decided the case illegally and declared the land as surplus only in presence of respondent No. 2. Thus, the same is not binding against him. He has also submitted that on account of noncompliance of aforesaid provisions of the Act the proceedings of the competent authority in which the land was declared to be surplus and the proceedings for allotment of the same to appellant are ab-initio-void. In such circumstances the subordinate Court has not committed any error in setting aside the decree of the trial Court and passing the decree in his favour and prayed for answering the question in favour of respondent No. 1. In such circumstances the subordinate Court has not committed any error in setting aside the decree of the trial Court and passing the decree in his favour and prayed for answering the question in favour of respondent No. 1. So far other question is concerned he has submitted that regarding said proceedings under the Ceiling Act he was never informed by respondent No. 3 or by the competent authority. Thus, the suit could not have been filed within three months from the date of order. He came to know about it only in the year 1986-87, then immediately the suit was filed. Thus, from the date of knowledge it was within limitation. In this regard his further submission was that the suit filed by him is maintainable as the same is governed by section 9 of Civil Procedure Code. In support of such contention he has cited a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Vijay Singh vs. Competent Authority (S.D.O.) Tarana, reported in 1977 MPLJ 614 and also cited a case in the matter of Jngat Singh Barelal vs. State of M.P., reported in 7952 MPLJ 575. So far section 80 of CPC is concerned he conceded that neither such notice was given nor the permission was taken u/s 80(2) of CPC but the case was contested by the parties with understanding of the dispute, therefore this objection at the first instance before this Court cannot be entertained. Shri L.D.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate for respondent No. 6/State has supported the arguments of appellants allottees and justified the entire proceedings as drawn up by the competent authority under the Act. He also prayed to allow the appeal filed on behalf of respondent No. 6, the State of Madhya Pradesh. Having heard the Learned Counsels for the respective parties, on perusing the record it appears that the disputed land was initially recorded in the name of respondent No. 2 as Bhumiswami and he was the holder of the same as defined u/s 2(h) of the Act. As per record respondent No. 2 has filed the return in compliance of section 9 of the Act in which the respondent No. 1 was mentioned as minor and the member of the unit of respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 1 has not filed any return as holder of the land. As per record respondent No. 2 has filed the return in compliance of section 9 of the Act in which the respondent No. 1 was mentioned as minor and the member of the unit of respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 1 has not filed any return as holder of the land. On preparation of draft statement by the competent authority regarding surplus land, the same was noticed to respondent No. 2 as per provisions of section 11(3) of the Act. Thereafter respondent No. 2 has not filed any objection in relating to respondent No. 1 and land was declared to be surplus and the same was vested with the State by virtue of section 12 of the Act. It is also apparent that on passing the order u/s 11(4) of the Act no suit was instituted to declare such order as ab initio void u/s 11(5) of the Act by respondent No. 1 or by any other respondents. It is also apparent that till today the order dated 19-9-1975 passed by the competent authority has not been set aside by any of the authority or by the Court, thus the same is in force and in existence. The surplus land vested in the State of Madhya Pradesh as per procedure of the Act has already been allotted to appellant No. 1 to 8 while the appellant No. 8 has transferred his land to appellant No. 9 and since then they are in possession of the same. The present suit was not filed within three months from the date of order of competent authority and the same was filed after more than 11 years, even though the relief for declaration to declare the said order ab initio void has not been prayed in it. Coming to the question of notice to the respondent No. 1, in this regard firstly this Court has to examine the holder whom the notice was required under the Act, the same is defined u/s 2(h) of the Act which read as under : 'holder' means a tenure holder or an occupancy tenant or a Government lessee of land within the State and the expression 'to hold land' or 'holding land' shall be construed accordingly. In view of such definition, the holder means, a person who holds the land as a tenure holder or occupant tenant or Government lessee. As per revenue record i.e. Khasra Panchsala Ex. In view of such definition, the holder means, a person who holds the land as a tenure holder or occupant tenant or Government lessee. As per revenue record i.e. Khasra Panchsala Ex. P.6, P.7, P.8, P.9 and P.10 the respondent No. 2 was recorded as holder of it. The Court has no jurisdiction to cross the limit of the legislation if the same is enacted under the authority. In view of clear definition of Holder no other interpretation by taking the assistance of other sections of the Act could be made as argued by the counsel for the respondent No. 1. The other provisions of the Act do not extend the scope of said definition. According to it respondent No. 2 is held to be a holder of it and in such capacity he has filed the return u/s 9 of the Act, no return was filed by the respondent No. 1 or any other member of the family. If the same would have been filed by saying as holder then the situation could have been different. In response of said return all informations have been given to respondent No. 2 even on consideration the draft statement the same was issued and served on respondent No. 2 the holder as per provision of section 11(3) of the Act and the same was not objected by him u/s 11(4) of the Act. Even after passing the order no suit was filed within the limitation u/s 11(5) of the Act by raising the dispute of title against such proceedings. In such circumstances no separate notice was required to respondent No. 1 as his name was not mentioned in the record as holder. This question was answered by this Court in the matter of Datar Singh vs. State of M.P. and others, reported in 1997(2) MPLJ 393 in which it is held as under: 5. It be seen that if a title dispute was settled u/s 11(4), then a right was given to a party to approach the Civil Court u/s 11(5) of the Act. In the present case there is no title dispute arises at all. The dispute was only as to whether Kammod Singh is entitled to extra land on account of the fact that his son, Datar Singh, appellant was a major on the appointed day as indicated in the aforementioned Act. In the present case there is no title dispute arises at all. The dispute was only as to whether Kammod Singh is entitled to extra land on account of the fact that his son, Datar Singh, appellant was a major on the appointed day as indicated in the aforementioned Act. As indicated above, the competent authority came to the conclusion that Datar Singh was a minor, and therefore, the father of the appellant, Kammod Singh was not entitled to retain extra land. Thus, there was no dispute as to title, and therefore, the view expressed by the Court below that the bar created u/s 46 of the Act, would be attracted is a view to which no exception can be taken. Kommod Singh, original land owner could have challenged the order passed by the competent authority on 26th October, 1983, before the revenue hierarchy. This was not done. The aforesaid case is identical with slight differences. In such case father of the appellant has submitted return. On consideration by holding the son as minor an order regarding surplus land was passed. Subsequent to it beyond limitation suit for declaration to declare the order of competent authority ab initio void was filed on the ground that he was major on appointed day and entitled for some extra land as per provisions. In such suit the appellant was not found to be entitled for any relief regarding extra land and such question was also not found to be a question of title and the suit was held barred u/s 46 of the Act. It has also been held that after passing the order by competent authority the father of appellant Datar Singh could have challenged the order before the Civil Court u/s 11(5) of the Act but the same was not challenged and the suit was dismissed. On examining the case at hand with the aforesaid case the same position is here. The respondent No. 2 has not filed any suit u/s 11(5) of the Act. Thus, the respondent No. 1 had no authority to file the suit against the said proceedings of the competent authority. The said suit was also related with the member of joint family. Therefore, it is held that suit of respondent No. 1 was not maintainable as it was filed contrary to provisions of section 46 of the Act. Thus, the respondent No. 1 had no authority to file the suit against the said proceedings of the competent authority. The said suit was also related with the member of joint family. Therefore, it is held that suit of respondent No. 1 was not maintainable as it was filed contrary to provisions of section 46 of the Act. The legislature has prescribed the limit to file civil suit within three months from the date of order passed by the competent authority u/s 11(4) of the Act and respondent No. 2 was competent to file the suit on behalf of respondent No. 1 but the same was not filed during such limitation. Thus, subsequent to it suit could not be filed by respondent No. 1 as there is no provision for extension of time under the Act, and I have not been shown any provision in this regard. Therefore, suit filed after more than 11 years could not be treated within time and the same is hopelessly barred by time. For the sake of argument if suit is treated under the general law as submitted by respondent No. 1 then it should have been filed for declaration of title and also for declaring the order of the competent authority as ab initio void within three years from the date of order as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, but the same was not filed within aforesaid limitation. Thus, the suit is held barred by time in this regard also. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that competent authority has passed the order dated 19-9-1975 to declare the some land of respondent No. 2 as surplus under the Act in accordance with law and prescribed procedure against which by virtue of section 46 no civil suit could have been entertained by the Civil Court in any circumstance. Although this is not a suit for declaration but the manner in which it is filed by challenging the order of competent authority without issuing notice u/s 80 of CPC to the State and also without permission of the Court u/s 80(2), the suit is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Smt. Sooraj and others Vs. S.D.O., Rchli and others, , in which it is held as under: 5. S.D.O., Rchli and others, , in which it is held as under: 5. The appellant squarely comes within 3rd clause of sub-section (2) of section 4, namely when the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 seeks to determine the holding of the agricultural lands by operation of sub-section (2) of section 4, the applicability of the Act shall stand excluded and should have no effect on the operation of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960. The question then is whether the suit as such is maintainable. It is seen that under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, the surplus land shall stand vested in the State. The State has not been impleaded eo nomine as a party-defendant to the suit nor notice u/s 80 of CPC was issued to the State. The first defendant is only a statutory authority under the Ceiling Act. Therefore, without impleading the State Government or the Collector and without issuing the notice to the Government as enjoined u/s 80, the suit itself is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this ground. Even otherwise also, section 2(gg) of the Act defines 'family' to mean 'husband, wife and their minor children, if any. In view of the aforesaid discussion case cited by the respondent No. 1 in the matter of Vijay Singh vs. Competent Authority (S.D.O.) Tarana, reported in 1977 MPLJ 614 , the Full Bench decision of this Court which is based on section 9 of CPC and sections 11 and 46 of the Act, in which it is held that section 46 of the Act barred the jurisdiction of Civil Court only in those matters which are decided by the competent authority under the Act but the question which is not within the jurisdiction of the authority could not be covered u/s 46 of the Act. In such reported case some objections were submitted by the plaintiff/appellant beyond limitation u/s 11(4) of the Act the same were rejected by the competent authority as barred by time as prescribed u/s 11(3) of the Act such situation is not in the case at hand while in the case at hand the ample opportunity was given to the holder of land respondent No. 2 and all the questions have been decided. Thus, the remedy only u/s 11(5) of the Act was available to the holder. Thus, in the present circumstances cited case is not helping to the respondent No. 1. Even otherwise the said case was decided in a suit for declaration which is not the situation here. So far case cited by the appellant in the matter of Jagat Singh Barelal vs. State of M.P., reported in 1982 MPLJ 575 is concerned, on perusing the same it appears that that the said suit was not filed by family member of the holder of the land while such suit was filed by some other person whose suit for title on the basis of adverse possession was decreed by the Civil Court and he was not the party before the competent authority, such situation is not here. In the case at hand respondent No. 1 has claimed the partition and possession through respondent No. 2 holder. Thus, the same is not applicable to the case at hand. In view of aforesaid both the substantial questions of law are answered accordingly in affirmative and against the respondent No. 1. In pursuance of it both the appeals are allowed and by dismissing the suit of the respondent No. 1, the decree passed by the subordinate Appellate Court is set aside and the decree of trial Court regarding dismissal of the suit is hereby restored. There shall be no order as to costs. A copy of this judgment be kept with the record of S.A. No. 315/1991. Decree be drawn up accordingly. Final Result : Allowed