IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.225 of 2001 DOKRA RAM & ORS Versus GHAMANDI CHARAM & ORS ----------- 22. 19.8.2008 Heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants- appellants, who have filed this second appeal challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 64 of 1990 which was filed by the appellants for declaration of title of plaintiff nos.1 and 2 over schedule B, C and D land and title of plaintiff no.3 over schedule E land and also for confirmation of possession after setting aside the judgment of Consolidation Officer dated 12.8.1985 passed in Consolidation Case No.3 of 1984-85 and judgment of Director of Consolidation dated 23.11.1987 passed in Consolidation Revision No.738 of 1986 along with other ancillary relief. The said suit was dismissed by learned Additional Munsif, Bhabhua vide judgment and decree dated 20.8.1999 which was challenged by the plaintiffs in Title Appeal No.51 of 1999 (19 of 2000) which was also dismissed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Kaimur vide judgment and decree dated 11.5.2001. Against the said judgments and decree of the learned courts below, this second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs. After considering the arguments made by the appellants and perusing the materials available on record including the judgments and decree of the learned courts below it transpires that the main claim of the plaintiffs is against the judgments of the consolidation authorities passed 2 under Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and prevention of Fragmentation Act1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for the sake of brevity). Section 37 of the Act specifically provides that no civil court shall entertain any suit or application to vary and set aside any decision or order given or passed under this Act with respect to any matter for which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act. In view of the above mentioned specific bar upon the civil court to entertain such a suit, the learned courts below have rightly found the suit barred by law as it was for the same matter for which the consolidation authorities had passed their orders covered under the Act, Furthermore, the order of Director of Consolidation was also challenged by the plaintiffs in this Court vide CWJC No.4567 of 1988 which was also dismissed by this Court. Hence, the orders of Consolidation authorities were confirmed and the objections raised against it were discarded by this Court in the said writ petition. However, in any view of the matter, the plaintiffs could not produce any notification under the provisions of section 26A of the Act to show that consolidation operation had finally been closed in the area. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in this second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Md.S. (S.N.Hussain,J.)