The decision rendered in this second appeal shall also govern the disposal of connected second appeal being RSA No. 235 of 2005, because both the appeals involve common issues of facts and law. 2. This is a second appeal filed by the defendant (State) under Section 100 of C.P.Code against the judgment/decree dated 12.8.2005 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.3 at Guwahati in Title Appeal No.48/93 which in turn arise out of judgment/decree dated 22.7.1993 passed by Munsiff No.3, Guwahati in Title Suit no.294 of 1992. 3. By impugned judgment/decree, the first appellate court dismissed the defendant’s appeal and in consequence affirmed the judgment/decree of the trial court, which had decreed the respondent’s suit. 4. So the question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether two courts below were justified in decreeing plaintiff’s (respondent’s) suit against the defendant (appellant herein) in relation to the suit land.? 5. This second appeal was admitted for final hearing on following question of law. 1. Whether the learned counsel below erred in law in decreeing the suit in spite of the statutory bar as contained in Section 32 of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1956? 2. Whether the learned lower appellate court ought to have dismissed the suit on the ground that the learned trial court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to try the same? 3. Whether the finding of the learned court below that the suit land comes within the purview of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act 1976 is without any factual basis and therefore perverse? 4. Whether, the learned court below misconstrued the provisions of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1956 in concluding that the same did not apply to the lands held by tea gardens? 5. Whether the learned court below erred in decreeing the suit of the respondents by overlooking the fact that, in the meantime, the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 had been repeated? Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. 6. The respondent is a company registered under the companies Act. They claimed that they purchased the suit land measuring 3992 bighas, 2 kathas and 19 lechas situated at Choonsali Tea Estate, which falls within the Gauhati Urban Agglomeration Area, from its original owner and were accordingly placed in its possession. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. 6. The respondent is a company registered under the companies Act. They claimed that they purchased the suit land measuring 3992 bighas, 2 kathas and 19 lechas situated at Choonsali Tea Estate, which falls within the Gauhati Urban Agglomeration Area, from its original owner and were accordingly placed in its possession. The respondent then felt aggrieved of ceiling proceedings initiated and decided against their vendor under the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956 (for short hereinafter called “the Act”) filed a suit out of which this second appeal arise against the appellant (State) for a declaration that proceedings which were initiated and decided by the revenue authorities under the provisions of the Act in relation to the suit land are illegal and not binding on the respondent (plaintiff) and therefore entire proceedings be declared as bad in law. It is apposite to quote the relief clause of the plaint infra. “It is, therefore, prayed that your honour would be graciously pleased to pass a Decree for – (i) Declaration that the whole proceeding of Ceiling Case No.195/74 under the provisions of Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956 is a nullity, illegal, void-abinitio, without jurisdiction, malicious, vindictive and capricious and not binding against the plaintiff. (ii) a Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents and workmen from doing anything in pursuance to any order passed in the Ceiling Case 195/74 under the provisions of the Act, 1956 and in pursuance to the letter No.TCL.42/85/51 dt. 26-11-92 issued by the Defendant No.5 and from taking possession of the land as described in the schedule below in pursuance to letter dt.26-11-92.” 7. The appellant (defendant) denied the claim of the respondent (plaintiff) on several grounds. It was inter alia contended that suit to claim such relief is barred by virtue of bar contained in section 32 of the Act. 8. Parties adduced evidence. The trial court as also the appellate court overruled the legal objection raised by the appellant (defendant) about the maintainability of the suit and holding the suit as maintainable upheld the respondent’s (plaintiff’s) claim in terms of the relief claimed in the plaint and accordingly while decreeing the plaintiff’s suit granted reliefs to the plaintiff. 8. Parties adduced evidence. The trial court as also the appellate court overruled the legal objection raised by the appellant (defendant) about the maintainability of the suit and holding the suit as maintainable upheld the respondent’s (plaintiff’s) claim in terms of the relief claimed in the plaint and accordingly while decreeing the plaintiff’s suit granted reliefs to the plaintiff. The defendant felt aggrieved filed first appeal but the same was dismissed by the first appellate court by upholding the judgment/decree of the trial court. It is against this concurrent decree; the defendant (State) felt aggrieved and has filed this second appeal. As mentioned above, the appeal was admitted for final hearing on aforementioned substantial question of law Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, I am inclined to allow the appeal and while setting aside the impugned judgment/decree, dismiss the suit. 9. Section 32 of the Act, which alone is relevant for disposal of this second appeal, reads as under: “32. Bar to Jurisdiction:- Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no decision or order made in exercise of any power conferred by or under this Act shall be called in question in any Court.” 10. Reading the relief clause of the plaint quoted supra in the context of bar created by Section 32 ibid, I have no hesitation in holding that suit filed by the respondent (plaintiff) was hit by Section 32 and was therefore barred and hence not maintainable in civil court for being tried on merits. It was for more than one reason, as mentioned below. 11. In the first place, admittedly, the suit was filed to challenge the entire Ceiling proceedings initiated by the State (ceiling authorities) under the Act in relation to the suit land. Secondly, mere perusal of the Section 32 would go to show that no court including the civil court is invested with the jurisdiction to entertain the claim/suit to examine and decide the legality and correctness of the orders passed by the authorities under the Act in relation to any land and lastly the bar contained in Section 32 for filing a suit to challenge any proceedings/orders passed under the Act in relation to land being express in terms, the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit of this nature. In the light of these 3 reasons, it is clear that the jurisdiction of Civil Court was expressly excluded and was barred for examining the legality/correctness of the orders passed under the Act. 12. I, therefore, fail to appreciate as to how and on what basis, the suit to claim such reliefs could be filed in civil court and how it could be held maintainable by the two courts below. The Supreme Court in the case of Dhulabhai vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ( AIR 1969 SC 78 ) had explained as to how the issue relating to jurisdiction of civil courts and also other courts/Tribunals is required to be determined by the Courts in the light of Section 9 of the C.P.Code in the context of the express/implied bar provided in statute. 13. In the case in hand, the bar of filing suit is expressly contained in Section 32 and hence having regard to nature of relief claimed the bar contained in Section 32 ibid was clearly attracted and hence it is held that the suit was not maintainable to claim the aforementioned reliefs. 14. In my considered view, therefore, both the courts below erred in entertaining the civil suit and further erred in decreeing the suit on merits. Since the error committed by two courts goes to the very root of the case and being a jurisdictional one, the same deserves to be interfered with in second appeal. 15. In the light of foregoing discussion, the question no.1 is answered in appellant’s favour and against the respondent. It is held that suit filed by the respondent (plaintiff) out of which this second appeal arises, is not maintainable in the light of bar contained in Section 32 of the Act. As a consequence, the suit is dismissed. 16. In view of foregoing reason, the remaining questions need not be answered. 17. The appeal thus succeed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment/decree is set aside. No cost.