ORDER : 1. Instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.05.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge III, Rajmahal in O.S. No. 22 of 2016 by which the learned Court below has decided the Issue No. V and held jurisdiction of the Court below was not ousted. 2. The petitioner is the defendant, and the suit has been filed by the opposite party No. 4- Bhadu Mandal and others for declaration of right, title, interest and possession over the suit land and in the event, the plaintiff being dispossessed, for recovery of possession for the suit land detailed in the plaint. 3. The defendant appeared and contested the suit inter-alia on the ground that plaintiff instead of taking steps under Section 25 of Regulation III of 1878, before settlement Court, has wrongly filed the suit before the Civil Court which is not maintainable since the survey settlement proceeding has been initiated. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties issues were framed and the learned court below, before taking up other issues took up Issue No. V: “Whether the plaintiff suit is barred under the provisions of Section 5 of the Santhal Paragana Regulation III 1872?” 5. The learned Court below decided Issue No. V in favour of the plaintiff by holding that the suit was not barred as Section 63 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949 bars the institution of suits which seek to vary, modify or set aside and order passed by Deputy Commissioner in exercise of the revenue jurisdiction of the Act. Since the plaintiffs had been seeking declaration of the right, title and interest on the basis of his sale deed of the year 1968 therefore, the suit was not barred under Section 5 of the Regulation III, 1872. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that order dated 21.05.2022 passed by the Court below in O.S. No. 22 of 2016 is illegal, arbitrary and bad in the eye of law. The order has been assailed mainly on the ground that once the survey settlement proceedings is initiated, the jurisdiction of Civil Court is ousted till the final publication of the record of rights after completion of the survey operation. The order has been assailed mainly on the ground that once the survey settlement proceedings is initiated, the jurisdiction of Civil Court is ousted till the final publication of the record of rights after completion of the survey operation. Vide Notification dated 14.10.1977, an order was issued under Santhal Pargana Settlement Regulation, 1872 for initiation of settlement proceeding for the present and a record of rights to be prepared under Section 9 of the Santhal Pargana Settlement Regulation III, 1872 covering the entire District of Santhal Parganas including Sub-Divisions of Dumka, Godda and Rajmahal which is still going on and till date final publication has not been made. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of opposite parties that as per Notification, the Assistant Settlement Officer has passed an order dated 11.10.2017 in Objection Suit No. 434 of 2017 (Anju Devi vs. Jharkhand Sarkar) and as per Rule XXV 8(b), the learned Settlement Officer passed his order dated 21.06.2022 allowing the appeal bearing Settlement Misc. Appeal No. 115 of 2018 (Asha Devi vs. Anju Kumari). Section 63 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1949 reads as under: “No suit shall be entertained in any court to vary, modify or set aside, either directly or indirectly, any order of the Deputy Commissioner in any application which is cognizable by the Deputy Commissioner under this Act and every such order shall, subject to the provisions of this Act relating to appeal and revision, be final: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall bar the jurisdiction of a Civil Court in matters in which it had jurisdiction immediately before the Commencement of this Act.” Section 5 of Santhal Parganas Settlement Regulation Act, 1872 reads as under: Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts during settlement: (1) From the date on which under Section 9 the (State) Government declares, by a notification in the (Official Gazette), that a settlement shall be made of the whole or any part of the Santhal Parganas until the date on which such settlement is declared, by a like notification, to have been completed no suit shall lie in any Civil Court established under the Bengal, (Agra) and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 (12 of 1887) in regard to: (a) any land or any interest in, or arising out of, land. (b) the rent or profits of any land. (b) the rent or profits of any land. (c) any village headship or other office connected with any land in the area covered by such first-mentioned notification nor shall any Civil Court proceed with the hearing of any such suit which may be pending before it. (2) Between the dates referred to in Sub-Section (1), all suits of the nature therein described shall be filed before or transferred to an officer appointed by the (State) Government under Section 2 of the Santhal Parganas Act, 1855 (37 of 1855) or Section 10 of this Regulation according as the (State) Government may from time to time direct and such officer shall hear and, even though during the hearing the settlement may be declared to have been completed determine them.” 8. Reliance is placed on Tarini Marandi vs. Lakshim Mahto, (1998) 3 BLJR 1662 by the opposite party wherein a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and also for permanent injunction was filed, by which the plaintiff claimed to have acquired by settlement on the basis of compromise. The defendants preferred review petition before the Sub-Divisional Officer which was allowed and the Sub-Divisional Officer recommended for settlement of land as per his report. The plaintiff assailed the order in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner ordered for settlement of the land. The plaintiff thereafter filed suit for declaration of right, title and interest and confirmation of possession. The maintainability of the suit was challenged in view of Section 63 of the SPT Act and Sections 5 and 11 of the Santhal Pargana Settlement Regulation Act, 1872. It was held that the suit was not barred under the provisions of the aforementioned Act and Civil Courts have jurisdiction to entertain such suits and adjudicate the right title and interest of the parties in respect of the suit properties. 9. From plain reading of Section 63, it is apparent that jurisdiction of any Court for the institution of any suit which seeks to vary, modify or set aside either directly or indirectly the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, has been excluded. The facts of the present case are very different from the authority relied by the opposite party which was against the order of settlement. The present case is not against the order of settlement. The facts of the present case are very different from the authority relied by the opposite party which was against the order of settlement. The present case is not against the order of settlement. In the instant case, Anju Kumari @ Anju Devi wife of respondent No. 4-Bhadu Mandal filed one objection case in Court of Assistant Settlement Officer, Dumka being Objection Case No. 434 of 2017 which was decided by order dated 11.10.2017 in her favour. In this case, petitioner or his relatives were not made a party against the said order. The sister of the present petitioner namely Shanti Devi filed one Settlement Miscellaneous Appeal No. 115 of 2018 which is now subjudice. Unless the proceeding once initiated attains finality, the suit with respect to the same and similar parallel proceeding will not be maintainable. 10. The Original Suit No. 22 of 2016 was filed for declaration of right, title and interest and for possession by Anju Kumari @ Anju Devi. The name of the plaintiff was substituted by respondent Nos. 4-8 in the original suit. 11. The main contention urged before the learned Court below by the petitioner/defendant was that the suit was barred under Section 5 of the Santhal Pargana Settlement Regulation 3 of 1872. 12. The present suit is against the express mandate of Sections 5 and 11 of the Santhal Pargana Settlement Regulation Act, 1872. 13. Under the circumstance this Court is of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. 14. This civil miscellaneous petition is allowed. I.A. if any, are also disposed of.