Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 1228 of 1966. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated December 2	 1965 of the Punjab High Court	 Circuit Bench at Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No. 57 D of 1965. C. B. Agarwala and P. P. Juneja	 for the appellant. Sardari Lal Bhatia	 D. R. Gupta and H. K. Puri	 for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhargava	 J. The appellant Hatti was declared a Bhumidar 	of some land belonging to the respondent	 Sunder Singh	 under section 13 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act No. 8 of 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The respondent then brought a suit in the Civil Court claiming three reliefs. The first relief claimed was for a declaration that the declaration of Bhumidari issued in the name of the appellant with respect to the land in dispute was wrong	 illegal	 without jurisdiction	 ultra vires	 void and ineffective against the respondent. The second relief was that the respondent be declared entitled to Bhumidari rights under section 11 of the Act; and the third relief was for possession of the land. The suit was brought on the allegation that the respondent was the owner of the land	 while the appellant had no rights in it. The land along with some other land was on Mustrajri with one Sultan Singh for a period of 20 years ending in June	 1952	 and the appellant had been admitted as a tenant at will by the Mustrajar. On the expiry of the period of 20 years in June	 1952	 the Mustrajri stood terminated and the original Mustrajar 's heirs left the land. The appellant	 however	 continued in possession	 but	 since he was a tenant at will of the Mustrajar	 he had no rights in the land after the expiry of the Mustrajri. He was asked to surrender possession	 but failed to do so. On the other hand	 he was wrongly granted the declaration under section 13 of the Act that he was a Bhumidar when he had no rights as tenant in the land at all. The main defence taken on behalf of the appellant was that he was a non occupancy tenant and he was entitled to the declaration of his Bhumidari rights. Apart from the issues on merits	 one issue was raised by the appellant that the Civil Court bad no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions 165 of section 185 of the Act. The trial Court held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not barred. On merits	 the finding recorded was that the respondent was the proprietor of the land	 but no declaration could be granted that he became Bhumidar under section 11 of the Act	 as that relief could only be granted by the revenue authorities under the Act. It was held that he was	 however	 entitled to possession in exercise of his right as proprietor	 so that a decree for possession was granted in his favour. That decree was upheld	 in appeal	 by the District Judge and	 in second appeal	 by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Punjab. The Letters Patent appeal before the Division Bench was also dismissed	 so that the appellant has now come up to this Court in this appeal by special leave. The only point that was argued before the Division Bench in the Letters Patent appeal was that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit		 so that	 in this appeal	 we are also concerned with this issue alone. Section 185(1) of the Act	 on	 which reliance has been placed for urging that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction	 is as follows : "185. (1) Except as provided by or under this Act	 no court other than a court mentioned in column 7 of Schedule 1 shall	 notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure	 1908	 take cognizance of any suit	 application	 or proceedings mentioned in column 3 thereof. " The relevant entries in the First Schedule	 which require consideration	 are Numbers 4	 19 and 28. Item 4 mentions applications for declaration of Bhumidari rights in column 3 and	 inter alia refers to sections 1 1 and 1 3 of	 the Act. For these applications	 there is no period of limitation prescribed at all	 and the Court of original jurisdiction is that of the Revenue Assistant. Item 19 refers to section 84 of the Act	 and relates to suit for ejectment of a person occupying land without title and for damages. The three sub clauses mention that the suit can be instituted (i) by a Bhumidar declared under Chapter III of the Act or by an Asami falling under section 6 of the Act where such unlawful occupant was in possession of the land before the issue of the prescribed declaration form; (ii) by a Gaon Sabha where the unlawful occupant was in possession of the land before the constitution of Gaon Panchayat; and (iii) by a Bhumidar	 Asami or Gaon Sabha in any other case. The period of limitation is three years	 in the first case	 from the date of issue of the prescribed declaration form; in the second case	 from the date of constitution of Gaon Panchayat under section 151; and	 in the third case	 from the 1st of July following the date of occupation. The 166 Court of original jurisdiction in each case is that of the Revenue Assistant. Item 28 refers to section 104 and relates to declaratory suit under that section. No period of limitation is prescribed for such a suit	 and the Court of original jurisdiction is again the Revenue Assistant. The plea put forward on behalf of the appellant was that this suit	 which was instituted by the respondent	 	covered only those reliefs which could be granted by the Revenue Assistant under the three items Nos. 4	 19 and 28 of the First .Schedule to the Act mentioned above	 so that	 by virtue of section 185 of the Act	 the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred. The High Court has taken the view that the suit is really in the nature of a title suit and such a title suit is not covered by these items	 so that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not barred. It is this view of the High Court that has been challenged before us in this appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant took us through the various provisions of the Act to show that the Act is a complete Code which lays down the rights that any person can possess in agricultural land in the area to which the Act applies	 and the remedies that can be sought in respect of such land for obtaining declaration of their rights or any other declaration for possession. The Act abolished the ownership of agricultural land by the previous proprietors. This was effected by first laying down in sections 11 and 13 that proprietors will become Bhumidars in respect of their lands which were their Khud Kasht or Sir	 while tenants would become Bhumidars in respect of their holdings. Under section 6 of the Act	 persons belonging to several classes	 which included non occupancy tenants of proprietor 's grove and sub tenants of tenant 's grove	 and non occupancy tenants of pasture land	 or of land covered by water		 and some other classes	 shall become Asamis. "Holding" was defined in section 3(11a) 	of the Act by stating that it means: (a) in respect of (i) Bhumidar or Asami; or (ii)tenant or sub tenant under the Punjab Tenancy Act	 1887	 or the Agra Tenancy Act	 1901; or (iii)lessee under the Bhoodan Yagna Act	 1955	 a parcel or parcels of land held under one tenure	 lease	 engagement or grant; and (b) in respect of proprietors	 a parcel or parcels of land held as sir or khud kasht. The effect of sections 6 and 13 was that	 thereafter	 tenants and :sub tenants are lessees under the Bhoodan Yagna Act	 1955	 167 ceased to continue as such	 and either became Bhumidars or Asamis in respect of their holdings. Similarly	 under section 11	 proprietors in respect of their sir and khud kasht land became Bhumidars. These sections have to be read in conjunction with section 154 of the Act of which the relevant portion is quoted below: " 154. On the commencement of this Act (i) all lands whether cultivable or otherwise	 except land for the time being comprised in any holding or grove	 situate in a Gaon Sabha Area	 shall vest in the Gaon Sabha Sections 6	 11	 13 and 154 of the Act read together	 thus	 show that	 after the Act came into force	 proprietors of agricultural land as such ceased to exist. If any land was part of a holding of a proprietor	 he became a Bhumidar of it. If it was part of a holding of some other person	 such as a tenant or a sub tenant etc.	 he became either a Bhumidar or an Asami	 whereupon the rights of the proprietor in that land ceased. Lands	 which were not holdings of either the proprietor or any other person	 vested in the Gaon Sabha. In the case of proprietors	 their rights in the land continued to exist only in respect of holdings which	 under the definition	 must have been either their sir or khud kasht at the commencement of the Act. If it was not sir or khud kasht of a proprietor	 it would not be his holding and	 consequently	 such land would vest in the Gaon Sabha under section 154	 the result of which would be that the rights of the proprietor would be extinguished. It appears that it was in view of this scheme of the Act that	 under section 84	 the right to institute a suit for posses sion was granted only to a Bhumidar	 or an Asami	 or the Gaon Sabha. The Act envisaged only these three classes of persons who would possess rights in agricultural I and after the commencement of the Act. Proprietors as such having ceased to exist could not	 therefore	 institute a suit for possession. This aspect of the case has been lost sight of by the High Court and the lower courts	 because it appears that their attention was not drawn to the provisions of section 154 of the Act	 under which all lands of proprie tors	 other than those comprised in their holdings	 vested in the Gaon Sabha	 thus extinguishing their proprietary rights. 168 A second aspect that needs examination relates to the provi sions of the Act for declaration of Bhumidari rights. Sections 11 and 13 grant power to the Deputy Commissioner to declare proprietors in respect of their holdings and certain classes of tenants in respect of their holdings as Bhumidars. The procedure to be adopted for issuing the declaration forms was laid down in the Delhi Land Reforms Rules	 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") made by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 9	 105	 149	 162	 180 and 191 of the Act. The relevant Rules are 6 to 8. These Rules envisaged preparation of declaration forms by the revenue authorities without any application from any party. The declaration forms are based on the entries in the revenue records and	 having been prepared on their basis	 the declaration forms are issued to the persons who	 under the forms	 are held to be entitled to. be declared as Bhumidars. These Rules	 thus	 do not envisage any application under section 11 of section 13 at this early stage. Rule 8(4) lays down that anyone	 who challenges the correctness of entries in the forms of declaration	 shall	 except where it refers to a clerical omission or error	 be directed by the Revenue Assistant to file a regular suit within two months of the date of issue. Obviously	 this sub rule has to be interpreted in conformity with section 185 and item 4 of the First Schedule to the Act	 so that the scope of this sub rule must be confined to institution of suits in respect of matters not covered by item 4 of the First Schedule. This sub rule would not stand in the way of an application being made by any person claiming to be Bhumidar under item 4 of the First Schedule. The Rules were examined by Khanna J.	 in Lal Singh vs Sardara and Another(1) and in our opinion	 he rightly held that a perusal of the Rules goes to show that there is no provision for giving notice to different interested parties before a declaration of Bhumidari rights is made and the whole thing is done in more or less a mechanical way. That being the position	 it becomes obvious that an application for declaration of a Bhumidari right under item 4 of Schedule I of the Act is intended to be made even in cases where a declaration may have been previously granted under section 11 or section 13 in accordance with the Rules. The 	scheme of the Act appears to be that	 initially	 a declaration of Bhumidari right can be granted under section 11 or section 13 without calling for objections and without hearing contesting parties in favour of the person who appears to the revenue authorities to be entitled to the declaration on the basis of the records maintained by them. Thereafter	 any person aggrieved and claiming Bhumidari rights is expected to move an application before the Revenue Assistant (1). I.L.R. [1964] Vol. 169 who is to adjudicate upon the rights after following the usual judicial procedure. The order made by the Revenue Assistant in such a proceeding will then have to be given effect to and would override the declarations earlier issued in accordance with the Rules. This shows that any person	 who is aggrieved by a declaration of Bhumidari right issued in favour of another person	 can appropriately seek his remedy by moving an application before the Revenue Assistant under item 4 of the First Schedule	 whereupon	 if he succeeds	 he will obtain a declaration that he is the Bhumi dar. Such a declaration will automatically supersede the declaration issued by the authorities in accordance with the Rules without any adjudication of rights and without notice to interested parties. Khanna	 J.	 in the case of Lai Singh vs Sardara & Another(1) correctly interpreted the scope and purpose of the Rules	 under which forms of declaration of Bhumidari rights are issued	 but	 in our opinion	 incorrectly inferred that	 since there is no effectual adjudication of rights by the revenue authorities while declaring Bhumidari rights	 their declaration must be subject to the due adjudication of rights which	 in the absence of anything to the contrary	 can only be by a Civil Court. It is true that the declarations made by the revenue authorities without going	 through the judicial procedure are subject to due adjudication of rights; but such adjudication must be by an application under item 4 of Schedule I and not by approach to the Civil Court. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is clearly barred by section 185 of the Act read with the various items of the First Schedule mentioned above. If a Bhumidar seeks a declaration of his right	 he has to approach the Revenue Assistant by an application under item 4	 while	 if a Gaon Sabha wants a clarification in respect of any person claiming to be entitled to any right in any land	 it can institute a suit for a declaration under item 28	 and the Revenue Assistant can make a declaration of the right of such person. So far as suits for possession are concerned	 we have already held earlier that section 84 read with item 19 of the First Schedule gives the jurisdiction to the Revenue Assistant to grant decree for possession	 and that the suit for possession in respect of agricultural land	 after the commencement of the Act	 can only be insti tuted either by a Bhumidar or an Asami or the Gaon Sabha. There can be no suit by any person claiming to be a proprietor	 because the Act does not envisage a proprietor as such continuing to have rights after the commencement of the Act. The First Schedule and section 84 of the Act provide full remedy for suit for possession to persons who can hold rights in agricultural land under the Act. (1) I.L.R. [1964] Vol. 2 L235Sup. CI/71 170 The High Court	 in this connection	 referred to section 186 of the Act under which any question raised regarding the title of any party to the land	 which is the subject matter of a suit or proceeding under the First Schedule	 has to be referred by the Revenue Court to the competent Civil Court for decision after framing an issue on that question. Inference was sought to be	 drawn from this provision that questions of title could be competently agitated by a suit in the Civil Court	 as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not barred. It appears to us that there is no justification for drawing such an inference. On the contrary	 section 186 envisages that questions of title will arise before the Revenue Courts in suits or proceedings under the First Schedule and	 only if such a question arises in a competent proceeding pending in a revenue Court	 an issue will be framed and referred to the Civil Court. Such a provision does not give jurisdiction to the Civil Court to entertain the suit itself on a question of title. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is limited to deciding the issue of title referred to it by the Revenue Court. This clearly implies that	 if a question of title is raised in an application for declaration of Bhumidari rights under item 4 of Schedule I of the Act	 that question will then be referred by the Revenue Assistant to the Civil Court; but a party wanting to raise such a question of title in order to claim Bhumidari right cannot directly approach the Civil Court. The 	Act is a complete Code under which it is clear that any one	 wanting a declaration of his right as a Bhumidar	 or aggrieved by a declaration issued without notice to him in favour of another	 can approach the Revenue Assistant under item 4 of the First Schedule and this he is allowed to do without any period of limitation	 because he may not be aware of the fact that a declaration has been issued in respect of his holding in favour of another. A declaration by a Gaon Sabha of the right of any person can also be sought without any period of limitation. If there is dispute as to possession of agricultural land	 the remedy has to be sought under section 84 read with item 19 of the First Schedule. All the reliefs claimed by the respondent in the present suit were	 thus	 within the competent jurisdiction of the Revenue Assistant	 and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In the result	 the appeal is allowed	 the decree passed by the High Court is set aside and the suit of the respondent is dismissed. The appellant will be entitled to his costs in this Court	 while	 costs in other Courts will be borne by the parties themselves. Y.P. Appeal allowed.

Under section 13 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act	 1954 tenant was declared bhumidhar of land belonging to the respondent filed a suit in the Civil Court claiming that issued to the appellant was illegal	 that he should instead bhumidhar and prayed for possession of the land. Apart on merits	 the appellant raised the issue that the Civil jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the bar in section The trial court held that the jurisdiction of civil court was the appellant a respondent. The the bhumidhari be declared the from the issues Court had no 185 of the Act. not barred	 and decreed the suit. The decree was upheld in appeal by the District Judge. and	 in second appeal	 by a single Judge of the High Court. The Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed. Allowing the appeal	 this Court	 HELD : (i) The reliefs claimed by the respondent were within the competent jurisdiction of the Revenue Assistant and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Under section 84 the right to institute a suit for possession was granted only to a bhumidar or an asami	 or the gaon sabha. The Act envisaged only these three classes of persons who would possess rights in agricultural land after the commencement of the Act. Proprietors as such having ceased to exist	 could not	 therefore	 institute a suit for possession. This aspect of the case has been lost sight of by the High Court and the lower courts	 because it appears that their attention was not drawn to the provision of section 154 of the Act	 under which all lands of proprietors	 other than those comprised in their holdings	 vested in the gaon sabha	 thus extinguishing their proprietary rights. [ 1 67 G H] (ii)There is no provision in the rules for giving notice to different interested parties before a declaration of bhumidari rights is made	 Any person	 who is aggrieved by a declaration of bhumidhari right issued in favour of another person can appropriately seek his remedy by moving an application before the Revenue Assistant under item 4 of the First Schedule	 whereupon	 if he succeeds	 he will obtain a declaration that he is the Bhumidar. Such a declaration will automatically supersede the declaration issued by the authorities in accordance with the Rules without any adjudication of rights and without notice to interested parties [169 B] Lai Singh vs Sardara & Anr. I.L.R. [1964] Vol. 17	 2 Pb. 428 referred to. (iii)It is true that the declarations made by the revenue authorities without going through the judicial procedure are subject to due adjudication of rights; but such adjudication must be by an application under item 4 of Sch. I and not by approach to the civil court. The jurisdiction of the civil court is already barred by section 185 of the Act read with various items of the first Schedule [169 D E] The inference contra in Lal Singh vs Sardara & Anr. I.L.R. [1964] Vol. 17	 disapproved. 164 (iv)Section 186 only envisages that question of title will arise before the Revenue Courts in suits or proceedings under the first schedule and only if such a question arises in a competent proceeding pending in a Revenue Court an issue will be framed and referred to the civil court. Such a provision does not give jurisdiction to the Civil Court to entertain the suit itself on a question of title. [170 B C]