JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The instant second appeal is preferred being aggrieved and dissatisfied with reversal of judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Lohardaga in Title Appeal No.03 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.35 of 1996 dated 12.09.2001 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, has been reversed and decreed. 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the original plaintiff, Budhwa Lecha Oraon instituted the Title Suit No.35 of 1996 before the court of Civil Judge Jr. Division, Lohardaga claiming relief(s) for adjudication of right, title and interest over the suit land and to declare the order dated 10.01.1985 passed by the Anchal Adhikari, Kisko in Tana Bhagat Land Restoration Case No.1 of 1982-83, is illegal and without jurisdiction. The plaintiff has further prayed for declaration that neither the defendant No.1 nor his ancestors were Tana Bhagat and they never took part in freedom movement. The plaintiff has further claimed relief for recovery of possession of the suit property ejecting the defendant No.1 through process of the court along with cost of the suit. 4. According to the plaintiff, lands pertaining to C.S. Plot No.287 under C.S. Khata No.4 of village Jogiyara held and possessed by one Khakhu Sahu and recorded in his name. The said Khakhu Sahu died leaving behind his son Haudan Sahu. It is further alleged that R.S. Plot Nos.408, 409, 485 and 486 and R.S. Khata No.56 have been carved out from C.S. Plot No.287 and recorded in the name of Haudan Sahu. By way of amendment in the plaint, it was further added that at the time of C.S. operation, C.S. Plot No.287 was being cultivated by one Ludra Oraon, son of Faudha Oraon as adhbataidar of Khakhu Sahu, hence, Dar Raiyati C.S. Khata No.7 was prepared under C.S. Khata No.4 in the name of Ludra Oraon and C.S. Plot No.287 was recorded under Dar Raiyati Khata No.7. 5. It is further alleged that both Ludra and Khakhu Sao died, thereafter, the possession was recorded in the name of Haudan Sahu, son of Khakhu Sao. 5. It is further alleged that both Ludra and Khakhu Sao died, thereafter, the possession was recorded in the name of Haudan Sahu, son of Khakhu Sao. It is further alleged that in the year 1955, the family arrangement took place between Haudan Sao and his sons in which the suit lands were exclusively allotted to Radha Prasad, who sold the suit land to the plaintiff through registered sale deed dated 08.05.1962 and delivered the possession. The name of plaintiff has been mutated in revenue record and he is paying rent to the State of Bihar. 6. The defendant No.1 and his ancestor had no right, title and interest over the suit land. The defendant No.1, since 1976-77, in order to grab the suit lands along with other lands started posing himself as Tana Bhagat and filed an application under Section 7 1-A of C.N.T. Act for restoration of 16 plots of land of R.S. Khata Nos.7, 21, 37, 56 and 57 of village Jogiyara, which was rejected by L.R.D.C, Lohardaga in S.A.R. Case No.78 of 1975. No appeal was preferred against the said order, but another restoration case being S.A.R. Case No.14 of 1976-77 was filed, which was again rejected vide order dated 15.09.1976. Thereafter, an appeal being Revenue Appeal No.110 of 1976-77 was preferred which was also dismissed and against the dismissal of order of the Revenue Appeal, a Revenue Revision No.287 of 1977 was filed by the defendant No.1, which was remanded for further enquiry and disposal vide order dated 08.03.1980. Accordingly, restoration order under section 71 (A) of C.N.T. Act was passed by Additional Collector Ranchi on 19.08.1981 in respect of 27 plots of lands. The said order was set aside by the Revenue Commissioner in the Revenue Appeal No.110/1976-77, although, observation was made that ancestors of the defendant No.1 were Tana Bhagat and they participated in the freedom movement and their lands were auctioned and sold for arrears of land revenue and the Deputy Commissioner was directed to start a proceeding under the provision of Ranchi District Tana Bhagat Raiyat’s Agricultural Land Restoration Act, 1947 to passed an appropriate order. In pursuance of this order, restoration proceeding was again started by Circle Officer, Kisko with respect to the different plots of Khata Nos.7, 21, 41, 30, 10, 53, 16 and 56 in restoration case No.1/82-83 and the order of restoration was passed. In pursuance of this order, restoration proceeding was again started by Circle Officer, Kisko with respect to the different plots of Khata Nos.7, 21, 41, 30, 10, 53, 16 and 56 in restoration case No.1/82-83 and the order of restoration was passed. Therefore, the plaintiff’s title has been shaded with clouds, hence, this suit. 7. On the other hand, the case of the defendant No.1 is that the present suit is barred under sections 7 and 8 of Ranchi District Tana Bhagat Raiyats’ Agricultural Land Restoration Act, 1947. Notice under section 80 of CPC has not been served on the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga before filing the suit. The order passed by Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga dated 27.07.1987 dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff, has become final and no civil court had jurisdiction over the matter. It is further stated that the lands pertaining to R.S.Khata No.56 does not correspond to C.S. Plot No.287 of C.S. Khata No.4 rather the suit lands correspond to C.S. Plot No.287 of C.S. Khata No.7, which was recorded in the name of Ludra Oraon, who was Tana Bhagat Raiyat and his sons and heirs had taken part in freedom movement in between 1913 to 1942. It is further stated that due to non-payment of arrears of land, the suit land as well as other lands of the defendant was auctioned by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Execution Case No.670 of 1928-29, for which a suit was brought by one Haudan Sahu in the year 1926-27 against the ancestors of the defendants. The recorded tenant of C.S. Khata No.7, Ludra Tana Bhagat was the grandfather of the defendant No.1. It is further stated that the first S.A.R. case was filed under section 71-A of C.N.T. Act but the second S.A.R case was filed as per observation made by the Court of Commissioner in Revision No.287 of 1977 under Ranchi District Tana Bhagat Raiyats’ Agricultural Land Restoration Act. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and fit to be dismissed. 8. On the basis of pleadings of the parties following issues were settled by the learned trial court for adjudication: (i) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (ii) Has the plaintiff got valid cause of action for the suit? (iii) Is the suit barred by the law of limitation weiver estoppels and acquiescence? (iv) Is the suit barred by res-judicata? 8. On the basis of pleadings of the parties following issues were settled by the learned trial court for adjudication: (i) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (ii) Has the plaintiff got valid cause of action for the suit? (iii) Is the suit barred by the law of limitation weiver estoppels and acquiescence? (iv) Is the suit barred by res-judicata? (v) Is the suit bared under sections 7 and 8 of Ranchi District Tana Bhhagat Act? (vi) Whether the defendant or his ancestors were Tana Bhagat and suit land ever belonged to defendant No.1? (vii) Whether the plaintiff has got title over the suit land? (viii) Whether the order dated 10.01.1985 passed by Anchal Adhikari, Kisko in Tana Bhagat Land Restoration Case No.1 of 1982-83 is illegal and without jurisdiction? (ix) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession over the suit land from the defendant No.1? (x) Any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff may be entitled too? 9. Learned trial court after considering oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties has decided all the issues against the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit. 10. In order to prove the above issues, the parties have adduced following evidence:- Plaintiffs’ Evidence:- 11. The plaintiff has examined altogether 6 witnesses namely:- P.W.1-Karma Oraon P.W.2-Sheo Nath Oraon P.W.3-Hari Nath Oraon P.W.4-Budhuwa Lecha Oraon P.W.5-Jeet Baran Oraon P.W.6-Bisheshwar Sahu Apart from the oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the plaintiff:- Ext.1-Sale deed No.1164 dated 08.05.1962 executed by Radha Prasad in favour of the Budhuwa Lecha Oraon with respect to Khata No.56, Plot Nos.408, 409, 485 and 486. Ext.2 and 2/a is the sketch map of C.S. Khata No.485, 408, 409 and 486 Ext.3-Recent survey khatiyan of Khata No.28 recorded in the name of Budhwa Lecha Oraon son of Ludra Oraon. Ext.4- Order dated 10.08.1982 passed by Commissioner in revision No.206 of 1981 Ext.5- C.S. record of rights of khata no.4, plot no.328 recorded in the name of Khaku Sahu in possession of Ladura Oraon as a dar-raiyat Khata No.7 & Plot No.335 recorded in the name of Khaku Sahu in possession of Ludra Oraon in dar-riyat khata no.8, plot no.287 is recorded in the name of Khaku Sahu and in the possession of Ludra Oraon dar-riyat khata no.7. Ext.6 is the order passed by commissioner in revision no.287/1977 on 08.03.1980 Ext.6/a- Order passed by the commissioner in revision No.206 of 1981 Ext.7 is the certified copy of C.S. record of rights of khata no.4 recorded in the name of Khakhu Sahu Ext.8 is the certified copy of the recent record of rights of khata no.28 in the name of Budhwa Lecha Oraon. Ext.9- R.S. record of rights of khata no.56 recorded in the name of Haudan Sahu Ext.10 & 10/a are the map of village Jogiyara published in the year 1908 and 1934 respectively. Defendants’ Evidence:- On the other hand, the defendants have examined altogether 5 witnesses namely:- D.W. 1-Soma Tana Bhagat D.W.2-Tinku Tana Bhagat D.W.3-Lalu Oraon D.W.4-Rupdeo Tana Bhagat D.W.-5 Jagarnath Tana Bhagat Following documentary evidences of the defendants has been adduced, which are as under:- Ext.A-Caste Certificate issued by Anchal Adhikari(Circle Officer), Kisko granted on 14.05.1998 in favour of Rupdeo Tana Bhagat that he was Oraon, Tana Bhagat. Ext.B- Order of writ of delivery of possession issued to the Halka Karmachari. Ext.X is the certificate by Ranchi District Congress Committee. Ext. X/1 is the Xerox copy of an application written by Sahabir Tana Bhagat. Ext.C- Order of restoration order in favour of the respondent passed by CO in 1/82-83. Ext. C/1- Order of delivery possession Ext.C/2- Order dated 27.08.1987 in Appeal No.3 R 15/86-87 in the court of DC. Ext.C/3- Order dated 10.08.1982 in Ranchi Rev. Revision No. 206 of 1981 Ext.C/4-Order dated 08.03.1980 passed in Ranchi Rev Revision No.287 of 1977. Ext.D- Order of execution case No.630 of 1928-29 Court of Rent Suit Deputy Collector, Ranchi. Ext.E- C.S. Khatiyan of dar-raiyat khata no.7 of village Jogiyarra recorded in the name of Ladura Oraon and the rent was received by Khakhu Sahu of khata no.4. Ladura Oraon was under adhbatai-dar-raiyat. Plot No.287 area 1.10 acres is included in this khata. Ext.F-Order dated 29.1.1926 passed by Rent Suit Deputy Collector. By this order eviction was ordered against (i) Jeetu Singh, (ii) Ado Sigh, Both son of Gauri Singh village of Barwa Toli (iii) Vikram Munda, son of Baudha Munda, (iv) Ludra Munda, son of Mangraj Munda of village-Jogiyara Baudha Toli. 12. Plot No.287 area 1.10 acres is included in this khata. Ext.F-Order dated 29.1.1926 passed by Rent Suit Deputy Collector. By this order eviction was ordered against (i) Jeetu Singh, (ii) Ado Sigh, Both son of Gauri Singh village of Barwa Toli (iii) Vikram Munda, son of Baudha Munda, (iv) Ludra Munda, son of Mangraj Munda of village-Jogiyara Baudha Toli. 12. Learned trial court has taken issues Nos.VI, VII, VIII and IX together for adjudication and on the basis of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties came to conclusion that the defendants’ ancestor was dar-raiyat under Khata No.7 of the recorded tenant. The defendants being ignorant as original persons has not filed any document to show that his ancestor was Tana Bhagat, who went to jail in freedom movement but Ext.C shows that Rupdeo Tana Bhagat was convicted under section 145 of IPC in case No. 910/331 of 1933. The oral testimony of the defendant No.4 also shows that Ludra Oraon was his grandfather, who had taken part in freedom movement and stopped to give rent with respect to the suit land appertaining Khata No.7, which was auctioned sold in 1928-29 and taken by Haudan Sahu. Therefore, as per the provisions under Ranchi District Tana Bhagat Raiyats’ Agricultural Land Restoration Act, 1947, Anchal Adhikari in land restoration Case No.1/82-83 has rightly ordered for delivery of possession of the suit land to the defendants, therefore, plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit land. Accordingly, the aforesaid issues were decided against the plaintiffs. 13. Since, the aforesaid main issues were decided in favour of the defendants against the plaintiff. Other issues Nos. I, II, III, IV, V and X have also been decided against the plaintiff and suit of the plaintiff was dismissed on contest but without cost. The plaintiff preferred first appeal assailing the judgment and decree of trial court in Title Appeal No.03 of 2002 wherein learned Appellate Court rewriting the judgment has decided all the issues in this case as settled by learned trial court by re-appreciating and scrutinizing the evidence available on record. 14. The Appellate Court has taken issues Nos. The plaintiff preferred first appeal assailing the judgment and decree of trial court in Title Appeal No.03 of 2002 wherein learned Appellate Court rewriting the judgment has decided all the issues in this case as settled by learned trial court by re-appreciating and scrutinizing the evidence available on record. 14. The Appellate Court has taken issues Nos. VI and VII as primary issues for adjudication:- It is observed that under section 2 (1) of Ranchi District Tana Bhagat Raiyats’ Agricultural Land Restoration Act, 1947 requires two things to be proved; firstly his land should have sold in execution of a decree for arrears of rent in between 1913 and 1942. Secondly, the default in payment of rent must have occasioned due to participation in freedom movement. It was further observed that once the plaintiff proves his title to the land in question, the claim of the defendants for restoration of land in question on the basis of Ranchi District Tana Bhagat Raiyats’ Agricultural Land Restoration Act, 1947 can succeed only, if it proves the necessary ingredients. 15. As regards issue No.V, learned trial court has merely reiterated the provision of section 7, which provides that Anchal Adhikari may pass order under Ranchi District Tana Bhagat Raiyats’ Agricultural Lands Restoration Act, 1947 and appeal shall lie to the Deputy Commissioner and the order of Deputy Commissioner or Commissioner on such appeal shall be final and according to section 8 of the Act neither the High Court nor any civil court have any jurisdiction in any matter which the Deputy Commissioner is empowered to dispose of under this Act. Accordingly, decided the aforesaid issue against the plaintiffs. 16. Learned Appellate Court had placed reliance upon the full Bench’s decision of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Paritosh Maity and etc v Ghasiram Maity and Anr. (1988) BLJR 34 , wherein it has been held that “in case of declaration of title and confirmation of possession, a civil suit is maintainable for challenging the entries of revenue records”. This authority has been followed by Hon’ble Court in subsequent decision. By the same logic it can be held that where the question of title is involved the jurisdiction of civil court is not fettered. 17. This authority has been followed by Hon’ble Court in subsequent decision. By the same logic it can be held that where the question of title is involved the jurisdiction of civil court is not fettered. 17. Learned Appellate Court after perusal of the documentary evidence led by the plaintiff arrived at conclusion that originally the suit land was belonging to Khakhu Sahu as a recorded Raiyat and ancestors of defendants, Ludra Oraon was shown as dar- raiyat and a separate Khata No.7 was allocated. It is also not disputed fact that the plaintiff has purchased the suit property from the ancestor of recorded raiyat in whose share, the suit propery was allotted since 1962. The dispute was raised by defendant No.1 since 1976 when successive SAR case was filed and lost and ultimately the case was filed under Ranchi District Tana Bhagat Raiyat Agricultural Land Restoration Act, 1947. The plaintiff got his name mutated and was in possession but due to impugned order passed in said proceeding, he was dispossessed. Therefore, title of the plaintiff is not disputed. Now the question arises as to whether defendants is Tana Bhagat within the meaning of Ranchi District Tana Bhagat Raiyat Agricultural Land Restoration Act. So far the first limb of the aforesaid section 2(1) of the Act is concerned, it is evident from Ext.D execution Case No.630/1928-29 that C.S. Plot No.287 was auctioned with other plots in the rent suit was filed by Haudan Sahu against Mostt. Mango Orain and others. Ext-F is also the order of rent suit of 1926-27, in which various plots were auctioned in the rent suit, therefore, there is no doubt that C.S. Plot No.287 which was recorded in dar-raiyat Khata No.7 was auctioned following the rent suit filed by Haudan Sahu. Therefore, first limb of the section is established. So far as, second limb of section to be proved by the defendants, there is no pleading at all in their written statement about the name of their ancestor, who took part in freedom movement or who served any term of sentence of imprisonment. The ambiguous assertion has been made that the ancestor of defendants took part in the freedom movement. The ambiguous assertion has been made that the ancestor of defendants took part in the freedom movement. Although even taking latitude view having in mind the loose drafting of pleading in Muffasil courts, learned Appellate Court has considered the family pedigree of the defendants as given in para 11 of the written statement and also the oral evidence led by the defendants and observed that only Rupdeo Oraon, the defendant No.1 has produced Ext.C that his ancestor was convicted in the year 1933 in case 910/331 for the offence under section 145 of IPC, who happens to be great grandson of Ludra Oraon recorded dar-raiyat but neither Ludra Oraon nor his five sons and two grandsons were ever involved in any freedom movement and the suit land was auctioned sold much prior to the rent suit. The defendants’ witnesses have tried to give oral evidence that sons of Ludra Oraon and Dasai have also taken part in freedom movement and had also went to jail and also sustained sentence of six months but different witnesses have given different stories and no documentary evidence has been adduced. It was further held that the proceeding under Ranchi District Tana Bhagat Raiyats’ Agricultural Land Restoration Act, 1947 was also barred under section 4(4) of the said Act, which specifically prohibits any initiation in proceeding under sub- section 1 of sub-section 4 of the Act after 31st day of March, 1962. Here, in this case, no such application was filed therefore, learned Appellate Court arrived at conclusion that the defendants have failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove that any of his ancestors was a Tana Bhagat Raiyat within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Ranchi District Tana Bhagat Raiyats’ Agricultural Land Restoration Act, 1947 and the restoration proceeding was also not filed on or before 31.03.1962, therefore, title of the plaintiff over the suit land cannot be decided on the basis of uncertain claim made by the defendants as Tana Bhagat. On the basis of aforesaid findings of core issues, learned Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by learned trial court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff and allowed the appeal. 18. On the basis of aforesaid findings of core issues, learned Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by learned trial court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff and allowed the appeal. 18. This second appeal was admitted vide order dated 13.10.2022 on following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether the First Appellate Court committed an error of law by holding that the suit is not barred by Section 8 of The Ranchi District Tana Bhagat Raiyats’ Agricultural Lands Restoration Act, 1947? (ii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is perverse having been passed by misinterpreting the provisions of The Ranchi District Tana Bhagat Raiyats’ Agricultural Lands Restoration Act, 1947 and ignoring the documents and evidence in the record? 19. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that learned First Appellate Court while deciding issue No.5 which pertains to first substantial question of law formulated in this second appeal has categorically recorded findings that civil court has jurisdiction to entertain any suit of civil nature, which is barred under sections 7 and 8 of Ranchi District Tana Bhagat Raiyats’ Agricultural Land Restoration Act. Learned Appellate Court without meting the reasons of learned trial court has wrongly decided issue No.5, since the question of title is involved here which can be decided only by the civil court and not by the Revenue Court. Similarly as regards the second substantial question of law, it is argued that learned First Appellate Court has miserably failed to correctly apply the provision of Ranchi Tana Bhagat Lands Restoration Act ignoring the vital documentary evidence of appellants/defendants which Ext.F and C/3 which clearly proves that defendants were Tana Bhagat and due to participation in freedom movement their agricultural land was auctioned sold. The possession of the ancestors of Ludra Oraon is also proved by Khatiyan and thereafter his descendants and separate Khata No.7 was called out of C.S. Khata No.4 corresponding to R.S. Khata No.56. Learned First Appellate Court has miserably failed to appreciate that the said land was sold under auction proceeding during involvement of freedom movement of defendants’ ancestor namely Dasai Oraon, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned First Appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree of learned Trial Court is absolutely illegal and not warranted under law and fit to be set aside allowing this appeal. 20. 20. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that there is no legal substance in the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal in as much as learned trial court has recorded no reasoning at all while deciding issue No.5 rather the First Appellate Court meticulously examined the issues and on the basis of sound principles of law decided that the question of title and confirmation of possession can only to be decided by the Civil Court and not by any Revenue Court and civil suit can be entertained in spite of any bar created under Revenue Acts. The similar bar has also been created under section 258 of CNT Act, 1908. In this regard, he has also placed reliance upon the reported judgment of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Paritosh Maity and etc v Ghasiram Maity and Anr. (1988) BLJR34 as relied upon by learned appellate court. It is further submitted that learned First Appellate Court has very wisely and aptly taken into consideration relevant provision of Ranchi District Tana Bhagat Raiyats’ Agricultural Land Restoration Act, 1947 and rightly held that although the ancestor of defendants, Ludra Oraon was recorded as dar-raiyat under Khakhu Sao and evicted for non-payment of rent in execution case but at the same time, the defendants failed to prove that any of the ancestors of the defendants was Tana Bhagat and ever participated in freedom movement at the time of their eviction from the land. Learned appellate court has also found that two successive SAR case were filed by the defendants and were dismissed. Learned appellate court has also rightly appreciated that under sub-section 4 of section 4 proviso specifically provides that any proceeding under Sub-section 1 can be initiated only prior to 31st March, 1962. Therefore, the proceeding itself was not maintainable before Anchal Adhikari and Deputy Commissioner. The Appellate Court has passed sound and reason order differing from the findings of the learned Trial Court and set aside the judgment passed by the Trial Court which does not warrant any interference in this appeal. This second appeal has no merits and liable to be dismissed. 21. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment passed by learned Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both sides. 22. This second appeal has no merits and liable to be dismissed. 21. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment passed by learned Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both sides. 22. At the very outset, it would be relevant to discuss the provisions of law involved in this second appeal and propounded as substantial questions of law. 2. Definitions. - In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,- [(1) "Tana Bhagat raiyat", in relation to any agricultural land in the district of Ranchi sold in execution of a decree for arrears of rent, means a raiyat or under raiyat who defaulted in payment of arrears of rent or any decree for such arrears in pursuance of any freedom movement launched or believed to have been launched in any of the years 1913 to1942;] [4. Procedure for effecting restoration of holdings sold for arrears of rent. Procedure for effecting restoration of holdings sold for arrears of rent. – (1) If the holding of any Tana Bhagat raiyat has been sold in execution of a decree for arrears of rent due to the default, in payment of such arrears or decree, made by such raiyat in pursuance of any freedom movement launched or believed to have been launched in any of the years 1913 to 1942, the Deputy Commissioner shall, on an application made in the prescribed form and in the prescribed manner by the Tana Bhagat raiyat or if he is dead, his legal representative or any other person duly authorised in this behalf by such Tana Bhagat raiyat or his legal representative, for the restoration of such holding to the ownership and possession of the Tana Bhagat raiyat or, as the case may be, his legal representative, make an inquiry in the prescribed manner after giving the parties interested a reasonable opportunity of being heard.] (2) If after the inquiry under sub-section (1), the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied about the claim of such Tana Bhagat raiyat or his legal representative he may require him to deposit with the Deputy Commissioner within the time allowed by him such sum as may be determined by him having regard to the amount for which the holding was sold to the auction-purchaser or alienated, in any of the ways specified in sub-section (2) of Section 6, to the person in possession of the holding, either in whole or in part, for valuable consideration and the amount of any compensation for improvements effected to the holding which the Deputy Commissioner may deem fair and equitable. (3) If the Tana Bhagat raiyat or, as the case may be, his legal representative makes the deposit required under sub-section (2), the Deputy Commissioner shall make an order in writing restoring the holding to the ownership and possession of such Tana Bhagat raiyat or his legal representative. (3) If the Tana Bhagat raiyat or, as the case may be, his legal representative makes the deposit required under sub-section (2), the Deputy Commissioner shall make an order in writing restoring the holding to the ownership and possession of such Tana Bhagat raiyat or his legal representative. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Deputy Commissioner may, on receipt of any information, or on his own knowledge, that the holding of any Tana Bhagat raiyat has been sold in execution of a decree for arrears of rent for the reasons stated in sub- section (1), initiate of his own motion proceedings for restoration of such holding to the ownership and possession of such Tana Bhagat raiyat or, if he is dead, to his legal representative and thereupon the provision of sub-section (1), (2) and (3) shall apply mutatis mutandis to such proceedings: Provided that no proceedings shall be initiated under sub-section (1) or subsection (4) [after the 31st day of March, 1962.] Explanation. - In this section- (i) "parties interested" means the auction-purchaser of the holding or any person who may be in possession of such holding by alienation in any of the ways specified in sub-section (2) of Section 6, and (ii) "holding", includes a portion of a holding. 7. Appeals. - (1) An appeal shall lie from an order passed under Section 4. (i) if such order is passed by an officer, other than the Deputy Commissioner, to the DeputyCommissioner; (ii) if such order is passed by the Deputy Commissioner, to the Commissioner; and the decision of the Deputy Commissioner or of the Commissioner on any such appeal shall be final. (2) Appeals under this section shall be heard and disposed of in accordance with the prescribed procedure. 8. Exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Court and High Court. - Neither the High Court nor any Civil Court shall have jurisdiction in any matter which the Deputy Commissioner is empowered to dispose of under this Act and the order of the Deputy Commissioner under any provision of the Act shall, subject to the provisions of Section 7 , be final and shall not be questioned in any Court. 23. - Neither the High Court nor any Civil Court shall have jurisdiction in any matter which the Deputy Commissioner is empowered to dispose of under this Act and the order of the Deputy Commissioner under any provision of the Act shall, subject to the provisions of Section 7 , be final and shall not be questioned in any Court. 23. The very first substantial question of law raised in this appeal pertains to jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain the suit against the specific provision of sections 7 and 8 of Ranchi District Tana Bhagat Raiyats’ Agricultural Land Restoration Act, 1947. In this connection, learned counsel for the respondent as well as learned first appellate court has placed reliance upon the reported judgment in Paritosh Maity and etc v Ghasiram Maity and Anr. AIR, 1987, Patna 167, wherein at para 10, which has been held as under:- “10. Against the aforesaid legislative background, one may now revert to the wholly well known provisions of S. 9, Civil P.C., the relevant part thereof may be quoted for facility of reference: “The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.” There cannot be any dispute that questions relating to title in land or any interest in land are matters of a civil nature. Both generally and specifically the suits involved in this set of appeals are suits of a civil nature and jurisdiction of the Civil Court can only be barred if firstly, it is expressly excluded or secondly, if it is so done by necessary implication. Indeed, in this context some basic propositions are so well established by judicial pronouncements that they need to be only recapitulated, viz.: (i) A litigant having a grievance of a civil nature has, independently of any statute, a right to institute a suit in Civil Court unless its cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred and there is a strong presumption in favour of the jurisdiction of a Civil Court (see (1) AIR 1964 SC 1126 (V.R. Sadacope Naidu v. Bakthavatsalam), (2) AIR 1961 SC 149 (Brij Raj Singh v. Laxman Singh), and (3) AIR 1961 Patna 142 (FB) (Patna Municipal Corporation v. Ram Bachan Lal). (ii) The exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Court is not to be readily inferred. (ii) The exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Court is not to be readily inferred. A statute ousting jurisdiction of the Civil Court must do so either in express terms or by use of such languag as would necessarily lead to such an inference (see AIR 1969 SC 439 (Musamia Imam Haider Bax Razvi v. Rabari Govindbhai Ratnabhai and AIR 1969 SC 560 (Dewaji v. Ganpatlal)). (iii) The onus is on the party who seeks to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to establish its stand. Further, a statute ousting the jurisdiction of the Civil Court must be strictly construed (see AIR 1966 SC 1718 (Abdul Waheed Khan v. Bhawani)). (iv) Even if the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded by statute, in case where the provisions of such statute have not been complied with, or a statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, the Civil Courts would still have jurisdiction to examine such cases (see AIR 1966 SC 1718 : Abdul Waheed Khan v. Bhawani)”. 24. In view of aforesaid settled principle of law, the claim of the plaintiff/respondent, who has knocked the door of the Civil Court for declaration of his right, title and interest and recovery of possession due to his wrongful dispossession by Revenue Court, cannot be said to be not entertainable under law otherwise, a rightful owner of the property might be deprived of his lawful rights. In this case, it is admitted position that recorded Raiyat of the lands under suit was one Khakhu Sahu and thereafter inherited by his son. The great grandfather of the defendant No.1, Ludra Oraon was recorded as dar-raiyat in respect of some partition of land of the principal Raiyat. 25. It is also established that the said dar-raiyat was evicted from the suit property, execution case No.630 of 1928-29 and it is also admitted position that the plaintiffs have purchased the suit property from the descendant of original recorded Raiyat in the year 1962. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff pertaining to declaration of title and recovery of possession is absolutely maintainable under Section 9 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE and as against the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be entertained, therefore, I do not find any legal substance in the first substantial question of law, which is decided in negative against the appellant. 26. 26. So far as the second substantial question of law involved in this appeal is concerned, from perusal of the trial court judgment as regards issue Nos.VI, VII, VIII and IX, there is no discussion about the question involved as to whether the defendants or their ancestors were recognized as Tana Bhagat during execution proceeding for eviction on account of arrears of rent of their ancestors. Learned First Appellate Court has rightly discussed the said question in two limbs: In the first hand, the plaintiff is title holder of the property, which is proved by oral as well as documentary evidence and also admitted fact. The claim of defendants is based upon special plea recognized under Ranchi District Tana Bhagat Raiyats’ Agricultural Land Restoration Act. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the defendants to prove the ingredients of provision under section 2(1), which defines Ranchi District Tana Bhagat Raiyats’ Agricultural Land Restoration Act and also is entitlement of restoration of possession in legal manner. 27. In this connection, learned First Appellate Court discussed two limbs of the definition of Tana Bhagat land and both are required to be proved by the defendants. The defendants have to prove that he was dispossessed from the land in execution of a decree for arrears of rent and secondly in default of payment of rent should have occasion because of participation in the freedom movement. In the instant case, there was no pleading at all in the written statement of the defendants regarding participation in any freedom movement. Ludra Oraon was dar-raiyat and there is no whisper in the written statement as to how he participated in freedom movement. Simply, a reference has come up in the order of the Circle Officer (Ext.C) regarding case No.910/331 of 1933 that ancestor of the defendants Rupdeo Tana Bhagat has been sentenced under section 145 of IPC but no documentary evidence has been adduced. The eviction has taken place out of execution case No.630 of 1928-29 (Ext.D), which was instituted by Haudan Sahu, son of Khakhu Sahu against sons of Ludra Oraon and rent suit of 1926-27 (Ext.F) was also filed by Haudan Sahu against sons of Ludra Oraon in the year 1926-27. None of the aforesaid ancestors of the defendants have been proved to have participated in any freedom movement due to which they cannot pay arrears of rent and evicted. None of the aforesaid ancestors of the defendants have been proved to have participated in any freedom movement due to which they cannot pay arrears of rent and evicted. Therefore, there is no reason to entertain the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that the provision of Ranchi District Tana Bhagat Raiyats’ Agricultural Land Restoration Act, 1947 has not been considered in right perspective by the First Appellate Court. The appellants were never vigilant to enforce their rights within time frame as provided in the proviso to section 4 (4)of the said Act, till 31st March, 1962 and made futile exercise since the year 1976 to dispossess the settled Raiyat from the suit land. 28. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, I do not find any merits in this second appeal, which stands dismissed on contest and the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court appears to be well reasoned and considered on facts and law, which is hereby affirmed and upheld. Both parties shall bear their own cost. 29. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 30. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.