JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. D.R. Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner as well as Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. This is a petition under order XLVII, Rule 1 of the CPC from the judgment dated 15.05.2017 passed by this Court in RSA No. 54 of 2013. It is to be mentioned that the said judgment had affirmed the judgment dated 02.08.2013 passed by the District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur (as he then was) in TA 25 of 2012. The judgment dated 02.08.2013 had affirmed the judgment dated 11.09.2012 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sabroom South Tripura in Title suit No.02 of 2010. 2. The review petitioner has fundamentally taken the ground which can be encapsulated in the following language as employed by the review petitioner. This Court by over sight failed to appreciate the entries made under column 24 against the plot No.2366/4350 corresponding in Khatian No.1105 (Exbt.2). In the said column the name of the defendant No.3, Niranjan Nath (the review petitioner) has been shown as the forcible possessor since 1380 BS i.e., 1383 TE. Similarly, in R.S. Khatian No.709/2 (Exbt-4) in the remark column No.16. It has been provided that the land is not transferable within 10(ten) years from 1382 BS. This is in respect of the allotted land which has been described in the said khatian. According to the review petitioner, this Court has not considered those remarks and one report (Exbt.D/1). In respect of exhibit.D/1, in the judgment which has been sought to be reviewed it has been categorically observed as follows:- Exbt. D/1, the report of the revenue inspector, cannot be admitted even as the secondary evidence. Photocopy of the report has been placed in the record without following the procedure as prescribed by Section 65 of the Evidence Act. Thus, no cognizance of the content of the report of the revenue inspector could be taken judicially. Therefore the first limb of the challenge falls through. Then, let us appreciate whether the entires made under column 24 and 16 were at all appreciated by this Court. For this purpose paragraph 8 of the judgment dated 15.05.2017 be referred and is reproduced:- “On the basis of this finding, the judgment of the trial court has been affirmed. However, the mesne profit as given by the trial court has been interfered with. For this purpose paragraph 8 of the judgment dated 15.05.2017 be referred and is reproduced:- “On the basis of this finding, the judgment of the trial court has been affirmed. However, the mesne profit as given by the trial court has been interfered with. As already noted, the substantial question in this appeal is whether the evidences where properly appreciated by the courts below in respect of the possession of the suit land. On scrutiny of the records, this court does not find any infirmity in the appreciation of the evidence. For this purpose the oral evidence of PWS.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 and DWs.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 and the documents including the original allotment order ( Exbt.1), Certified copy of the Khatian No.1105 of mouja-Shreenagar (Exbt.2), Certified copy of the finally published khatian No.709/1 (Exbt.3), Certified copy of the finally published khatian No.709/2 (Exbt.4), Copy of the advocate's notice (Exbt.5), Series of postal acknowledgments (Exbt.6), Certified copy of revenue map of mouja-Shreenagar [Sabek] (Exbt.7), Certified copy of revenue map of mouja-Srinagar sheet Nos.1 and 2(part), Hal (Exbt.8), revenue receipts (Exbt.9/1, 9/2. 9/3 and 9/4) and tahashil report (Exbt.10) were appreciated and considered along with the certified copy of the report of the revenue inspector, Exbt.D/1. A photocopy of the petition filed before the DM, South Tripura, Exbt.D and other documents such as Exbt.D/5, Exbt.D/6 and Exbt.D/7 and Exbt.D/8. Exbt.D/1, the report of the revenue inspector, cannot be admitted as the secondary evidence. Photocopy of the report has been placed in the record without following the procedure as prescribed by Section 65 of the Evidence Act. Thus, no cognizance of the content of the report of the revenue inspector could be taken into consideration judicially.” 3. Evidently, appreciation of those documents [Exbt.2 and Exbt.4) was made within the jurisdictional limitation. Hence, it is not a case of non-appreciation. The question therefore that as such partly remains whether the court has mis-appreciated the entires. There cannot be any amount of doubt that the entries of column 16 or 24 as the case may be, are the entries which are of rebuttable nature under Section 43(3) TLR & LR act 1960 which provides that such entires, unless rebutted, do carry presumption of being correct. There cannot be any amount of doubt that the entries of column 16 or 24 as the case may be, are the entries which are of rebuttable nature under Section 43(3) TLR & LR act 1960 which provides that such entires, unless rebutted, do carry presumption of being correct. The question therefore is if the entires are shown not to be correct by a rebuttable evidence, what will the consequence be of such evidence. Since those entires are fundamentally contingent in nature those simply cannot be relied by the Civil Court. The Civil Court has to follow the test of rebuttal for any presumption as to the existence of any fact. Here the same thing as happened. 4. Mr. D.R. Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner has repeatedly raised a ground of objection that keeping someone in possession in the government land, the said land cannot be allotted to any other person. The said land can be only alloted to the person in possession. Mr. Chowdhury, learned counsel has strenuously submitted that the Section 14 of the TLR & LR Act prohibits the state to allot the land keeping someone else in possession. This Court is constrained to observe that the provision of Section 14 of TLR & LR Act creates competence for the collector or his delegates to allot the land. It makes the further provision that even the person who were evicted under Section 15 of the TLR & LR Act can also be allotted the land under Section 14 of TLR & LR Act. 5. That apart, when this Court had projected a question that when the matter is wholly related to allotment under Section 14 of the TLR & LR Act read with the TLR & LR (Allotment of land Rule), 1962 or subsequent version, TLR & LR (Allotment of land, Rule) 1980, the process are completely guided and governed by those provisions as referred above. Whether an allotment has been rightly granted or whether someone was in possession when the allotment was made are the subject matter of TLR & LR Act and Rules. A Civil Court may broadly confront the circumstances as under: (1) If the allotment is made despite the prohibition in the law or in any other way which is dehors the law, the subject matter emerging there from was definitely be adjudicated by the Civil Court. A Civil Court may broadly confront the circumstances as under: (1) If the allotment is made despite the prohibition in the law or in any other way which is dehors the law, the subject matter emerging there from was definitely be adjudicated by the Civil Court. (2) When the allotment has been made and the challenge is directed to the mode of allotment on the basis of a previous possession that objection has to be raised before the authority which granted the allotment of the land because that authority holds the jurisdiction for violation of the condition of the allotment or its properties. To comprehend how the jurisdiction has been allocated by the statute, it would be appropriate to revisit Section 188 of the TLR & LR Act which provides as under:- “Jurisdiction of the Civil Court excluded.- No suit or order other proceeding unless otherwise expressly provided in this act, lie or be instituted in the civil Court with respect to any matter arising under and provided for by this Act” 6. Mr. Chowdhury, learned counsel has referred a decision of the privy counsel in respect of the jurisdiction of the civil Court in Secretary of State Vs. Mask & Co reported in AIR 1940 PC 105 where it has been laid down thus:- “It is now necessary to determine whether the order of the Collector of Customs, dated 20th June 1933, which dismissed the appeal under S. 188, and which was confirmed by the Governor- General in Council on an application under S.191, exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain a challenge of the merits of that decision. It is settled law that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is not to be readily inferred, but that such exclusion must either be explicitly expressed or clearly implied. It is also well settled that even if jurisdiction is so excluded, the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to examine into cases where the provisions of the Act have not been complied with, or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. ” [Emphasis added] 7. In this review petition, the petitioner has failed to make out any ground as unambiguously provided in the Mask & Co (Supra). ” [Emphasis added] 7. In this review petition, the petitioner has failed to make out any ground as unambiguously provided in the Mask & Co (Supra). On the contrary, it is already observed on reproduction of Section 88 of the TLR & LR Act that the said provision clearly bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the matters relating to which the TLR & LR Act 1960 deals with that matter substantively. Allotment of land is one of the subject matters which is exclusively dealt under the TLR & LR Act vide Section 14 and the respective allotment rules as referred above. 8. Mr. Chowdhury, learned counsel has further submitted that the Civil Court's jurisdiction cannot be wholesomely taken away when the dispute relates to the title of the land. There cannot be any difference of opinion in this regard. To buttress that aspect, Mr. Chowdhury, learned counsel has referred to the decision of the Gauhati High Court which in its full bench has decided in Daulatram Lakhani Vs State of Assam and ors. reported in AIR 1990 Gau 17 in the manner as reflected hereunder : The full bench speaking through Justice Hansarai has observed that:- “[one] civil court's jurisdiction would not be barred in the following cases: (1) when the order under Rule 18 is patently illegal or without jurisdiction; (2) Where the remedy provided by the Regulation to adjudge the objection raised is not sufficient; (3) where complicated questions relating to title are involved; or (4) where the plaintiff seeks declaration of his title over the land from which he is sought to be evicted.” 9. The review petitioner has no where unfurled a case in his statement of that nature or that the remedy provided under the TLR & LR Act 1960 is not adequate and the matter is so complicated in respect of title, a Civil Court unless invokes its jurisdiction justice cannot be done. 10. Further Mr. Chowdhury, learned counsel has referred to the decision of this Court reported in State of Tripura & ors. Vs. Dilip Kumar Majumder & ors. reported in (2016) 1 TLR 166. With all humility, this Court is persuaded to observe that, this decision does not have any relevance in the present context. 11. From the other side, Mr. 10. Further Mr. Chowdhury, learned counsel has referred to the decision of this Court reported in State of Tripura & ors. Vs. Dilip Kumar Majumder & ors. reported in (2016) 1 TLR 166. With all humility, this Court is persuaded to observe that, this decision does not have any relevance in the present context. 11. From the other side, Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel has submitted that in the guise of filing a review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, the review petitioner has attempted to turn this petition into another appeal urging the wholesomeness appreciation of the evidence. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has submitted that the appeal that was filed under Section 100 of the CPC was against the concurrent finding of the fact as to the possession. The finding of the Trial Court as well as the first appellate court is completely in the nature of rebuttal against the entries made in the column 16 and column 24 of the Exbt-2 & Exbt 4. That apart, those documents i.e. the khatian and their entries are not unimpeachable document which can be clearly be treated as 'Primary evidence' within the meaning of Section 61 of the Evidence Act. Section 43(3) of the TLR & LR Act itself provides that those entries can be rebutted by that evidence and such rebuttal completely debases the wholesome value of the documentary evidence. As such, what Mr. Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner has submitted that the universal principle of law is that the documentary evidence. But the will have its primacy and precedence over the oral evidence. But for the reasons as discussed that principle will not apply in this case. 12. Having observed thus this Court does not find any merit in the review petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, in this context, this Court will not impose any cost.