JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. H. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellants as well as Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC from the judgment dated 20.08.2013 delivered in Title Appeal No. 6 of 2013 by the District Judge, North Tripura Judicial District, Kailasahar, as it then was. 3. The following substantial question of law was framed by the order dated 07.05.2014 for hearing of this appeal: “Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below suffers from perversity?” The liberty was granted for proposing any other substantial questions of law, but the plaintiff-appellants did not make any prayer for additional or further substantial question of law. 4. The essential fact as would be required for appreciating the appeal is that the plaintiff-appellant filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest and confirmation of the possession and for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint. For reference, the suit land pertains to Mouja Ambassa, Khatian No.1/113, C.S. Plot No.1783/2119 and 1784/2120 respectively measuring .06 and .18 acres grossing up the total suit land .24 acres. 5. The undisputed fact is that by the allotment order dated 12.03.1990 [Exbt.1], the plaintiff-appellants were given allotment of the land measuring 2.67 acre and the suit land, according to the plaintiffs is out of the said parcels of the land. In terms of the said allotment order, Khatian No.435 [Exbt.3] was opened in the name of the plaintiff-appellants. Subsequently, the suit land was curved out from the unmutated khatian. It has been stated that in respect of a part of allotted land, the allotment order was cancelled as the plaintiff-appellants were not found in possession. Against the said order of cancellation, the plaintiff-appellants filed a protest-petition. From the records, it appears that the said prayer was dismissed. Against the said order one appeal was filed to the appellate authority under Section 93 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 and when the impugned first appellate judgment was passed, the said appeal was still pending. But the appellate authority [the Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Tripura] by his order dated 24.05.2013 had stayed the operation of the order dated 14.02.2012 passed by the D.M. & Collector until further order. But the appellate authority [the Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Tripura] by his order dated 24.05.2013 had stayed the operation of the order dated 14.02.2012 passed by the D.M. & Collector until further order. But the order of cancellation was not stayed as such. The Estate Officer, the respondent No.3 commenced a proceeding under Section 4 of the Tripura Public Premises [Eviction of Illegal occupants] Act, 1982 being case No.01/TRP/ABS/07 in respect of the suit land. Since the notice of the said eviction proceeding was served on the plaintiff No.1, the plaintiff No.1 filed one appeal before the appellate authority [the District Magistrate & Collector]. But the said appeal did not succeed. Thereafter, the plaintiff No.1 challenging the order dated 28.08.2007 passed by the Estate Officer [Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ambassa] and the order dated 26.10.2007 passed by the District Magistrate & Collector, Ambassa filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.389 of 2007 in the Gauhati High Court which had at the relevant point of time, the territorial jurisdiction over the state. However, the said writ petition was dismissed by the order dated 28.01.2008 observing as under: “Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the dismissal of the writ petition will not debar the writ petitioner to proceed with a case in the Civil Court to establish his right, title over the land in question, if so advised.” Thereafter the plaintiff-appellants filed the suit being T.S. 01 of 2008 in the Civil Court, Junior Division, North Tripura, Kamalpur. The defendant-respondents seriously contested the suit and the reliefs prayed therein. In the suit, the following reliefs are urged: (i) to pass a decree declaring that, the plaintiffs have right, title, interest and possession over the suit land of schedule below. (ii) to pass a decree declaring that, the Khatian No.1/113 created illegally inserting the C.S. Plot No.1783/2119 and 1784/2120 in Tripura from No.7 under rule 53(1) of TLR & LR Act 1960 is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside. (iii) to pass a decree declaring that the Notice dated 30/07/07 issued by Sub-Divisional Estate Officer, Ambassa, impugned order dated 28/08/2007 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as Estate officer, Ambassa in case No.01/TRP/ABS/07 passed by the District Magistrate & Collector in case No.90/TPP/2007 are illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside. 6. (iii) to pass a decree declaring that the Notice dated 30/07/07 issued by Sub-Divisional Estate Officer, Ambassa, impugned order dated 28/08/2007 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as Estate officer, Ambassa in case No.01/TRP/ABS/07 passed by the District Magistrate & Collector in case No.90/TPP/2007 are illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside. 6. The respondents have raised an issue that the suit cannot be filed in respect of creation of the khatian as well as in respect of the eviction proceeding inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the civil court is impliedly barred under the provisions of Section-9 of the CPC. 7. On recording the evidence, the trial court by the judgment dated 19.10.2012 delivered in Title Suit No. 01 of 2008 had dismissed the suit primarily holding that the allottee right, title & interest are subject to the terms and condition engrafted in the allotment order [Exbt.1], and it is not usual ‘ownership right’ inasmuch as one of the incidences or essence of ownership is that it should be unrestricted so far its disposition is concerned, but in the instant case, the plaintiffs have no unfettered power of alienation of the land allotted. The power of alienation has been clogged by Exbt.1 itself wherein it is stated that the allotted land, i.e, the suit land cannot be transferred without the written sanction of the Collector. Further, allotment of a land by the Govt. in favour of a person does not take away the right of the Govt. to revert it back to it, in some cases. In the instant case, Exbt.B explicitly shows that 1.93 acres of land is reverted to the khas land from the khatian bearing No.435 under plot No.1784/2633 by the order No.F.3(7-8)/SDM/ABS/REV/03/2182(A) dated 25/08/07 pursuant to the case No.33/REV/2002 u/s 14 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960. That apart, it has been observed that the Estate Officer has exercised its power under Section 4 of the Tripura Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1982. The trial court denied to hold that the said notice can be declared as void at the instance of the plaintiffs. Thus, the suit has been dismissed. 8. Being aggrieved by that judgment dated 19.10.2012, the plaintiff-appellants filed an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC in the court of the District Judge, North Tripura, Kailasahar [as it then was]. The trial court denied to hold that the said notice can be declared as void at the instance of the plaintiffs. Thus, the suit has been dismissed. 8. Being aggrieved by that judgment dated 19.10.2012, the plaintiff-appellants filed an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC in the court of the District Judge, North Tripura, Kailasahar [as it then was]. The said appeal being Title Appeal No.6 of 2013 has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 20.08.2013 holding that the allottees have got only a limited right and had no unfettered power of alienation of land. Under TLR & LR Act, the allotted land cannot be transferred without prior permission of the Collector, but the allotted land is heritable and can be mortgaged also. The finding on that basis, returned by the trial court has been reversed. However, it has been further observed by the first appellate court as under: “On a careful reading, I find that in Para-3 of the Order DM & Collector it is mentioned that in Revenue Case NO.33/REV/2002 vide Order dated 07-06-2007 Order of Allotment was partly cancelled and the plaintiff-appellants were not found in possession of 1.93 acres of land in C/S plot No.1784 P and the present plaintiff-appellants before the court of DM & Collector through argued that they preferred an appeal against the Order of cancellation. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants did not submit any document before the learned trial court that any appeal has been preferred against the Order of cancellation passed by the D.M & Collector. However, on the day of passing judgment on 29-06-2013 learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants filed copy of Order dated 24-05-2013 passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. of Tripura that the Secretary, Revenue Department was pleased to stay the operation of the Order dated 14-02-2012 passed by the D.M. & Collector until further Order.” The first appellate court has thereafter observed as under: “Perused the Order. Be that as it may, even if I agree with the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants, I find that the original suit was pre-mature in view of section 188 TLR & LR Act. As such, until the Revenue Proceeding is exhausted, no civil court can entertain any suit regarding any relief, which can be availed from the Revenue Court.” The appeal was on such foundation dismissed. Hence, this appeal. 9. Mr. As such, until the Revenue Proceeding is exhausted, no civil court can entertain any suit regarding any relief, which can be availed from the Revenue Court.” The appeal was on such foundation dismissed. Hence, this appeal. 9. Mr. H. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that by dismissing the suit or affirming the judgment of the trial court on altering some of the findings in effect, the courts below have acted perversely. According to him, the plaintiff-appellant No.2 did not receive any notice from the respondents for eviction nor did she receive any notice before cancellation of the said allotment order. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has asserted that since the order of the Collector in respect of the cancellation of the allotment has been stayed, the appellate court ought not have dismissed the suit. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has further submitted that the trial court by interfering with the eviction proceeding should have protected the possession of the plaintiffs. 10. Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents has contended strongly that so far the suit land is concerned the allotment has been cancelled. Even though, the plaintiff-appellants have resorted to a legal action for getting said cancellation order set aside, but the said proceeding is still inconclusive and as such there is no title as yet in favour of the plaintiff-appellants so far the suit land is concerned. 11. Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the eviction proceeding as has been set in motion by the Estate Officer [the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ambassa] would have been without jurisdiction if the appellants were holding any right under valid allotment order and in that event they could not have been termed as illegal occupant over the suit land. Even the Collector would not have seized any jurisdiction under Section 15 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960. Since all those elements are absent the legality of the proceeding cannot be questioned by filing a suit inasmuch as impliedly the suit is barred by Section 9 of the CPC as the TPP Act is a code completed in itself. 12. Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the appellants however did not make any additional submission in that regard. 13. 12. Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the appellants however did not make any additional submission in that regard. 13. Having regard to all these aspects of the matter and the substantial question of law as framed, this court is of the view that from the order dated 28.08.2007 passed by the Estate Officer [Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ambassa] in case No. 01/TPP/ABS/2007, it appears that the order of allotment was cancelled partly by the order dated 07.06.2007 delivered in Revenue Case No.33/REV/2002. While affirming the order of the Estate Officer, the appellate court [the District Magistrate and Collector] in his order dated 26.10.2007 [Exbt-7] has observed as under: “That the appellant was not found in possession of 1.93 acres of land in C.S. plot No.1784 (P) and the allotment order was cancelled to that extent by an order dated 07.06.2007 in Revenue case No.33/REV/2002. The appellant stated that he filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order of cancellation, but failed to produce any document to the effect that the appeal was admitted. The order of cancellation was therefore incorporated in the records. According to the latest records the appellant and his wife are left with three plots of land measuring 0.54 acre, 0.13 acre and 0.07 acre in CS plot No.1782,1783 & 1784 recorded under khatian No.435 in mouja Ambassa.” Thus, it clearly transpire from the said order that the appellants were not found in possession over the allotted land measuring 1.93 acre in plot No.1784(part) and the allotment order was cancelled to that extent by the order dated 07.06.2007 in Revenue Case No.33/REV/2002. 14. From the records it does not transpire very clearly whether that order of cancellation dated 07.06.2007 was challenged by the appellant or not. At least, no evidence has been produced by the plaintiff. What appears is that when by giving a notice under Section 4 of the TPP Act, a proceeding for eviction was initiated against the plaintiff-appellants they challenged that proceeding and that said challenge was continuing. But in the civil court the said order of cancellation dated 07.06.2007 in Revenue Case No.33/REV/2002 has not been questioned for obvious jurisdictional limitation. The entire challenge is against the eviction proceeding being case No.90/TPP/2007 and for declaration of title. 15. But in the civil court the said order of cancellation dated 07.06.2007 in Revenue Case No.33/REV/2002 has not been questioned for obvious jurisdictional limitation. The entire challenge is against the eviction proceeding being case No.90/TPP/2007 and for declaration of title. 15. Having observed thus, particularly when there is no challenge against the cancellation of allotment in respect of the suit land, this court is unable to declare any title in favour of the plaintiff-appellants or to issue consequential reliefs. If the cancellation of the allotment order had not been successfully challenged, the petitioner could not resist the eviction proceeding on claiming possession over the suit land. Hence this court does not find any merit in this appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed. Draw the decree accordingly. Send down the LCRs thereafter.