Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) THE writ petitioners are the appellants herein who are aggrieved by the judgment dated 6.3.2014 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5147 of 1998(P) whereby while dismissing the writ petition the learned Single Judge observed that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of Assistant Settlement Officer, Godda dated 7.6.1989 passed in Title(Partition) Suit No. 43 of 1983 and the order of the Charge Officer, Dumka dated 26.2.1998 passed in Title (Partition) Appeal No. 31 of 1989.
(2.) THE private respondents herein had preferred Title(Partition)Suit No. 43 of 1983 against the co -sharer including the petitioners claiming 1/12th share in the property recorded in the name of Dinaram Mahto and Rupan Mahto. They also had taken a plea that the judgment and decree in Title(Partition)Suit No. 79 of 1965 preferred by one Chakradhar Mahto, father of one Ram Prasad Mahto (petitioner No. 1) rendered by learned Sub Judge, Godda was not binding on them as they were not parties to the said suit. The said partition suit was transferred to the Court of Assistant Settlement Officer, Godda as the survey settlement operation had commenced according to the provision of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act. By virtue of Section 5 of the Santhal Pargana Settlement Regulation, 1872 the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain a suit in respect of any land or any interest in, or arising out of, land, or other matters enumerated therein were barred and such suit pending before the date of notification issued by the State Government shall be transferred to the Court of the Officer appointed by the State Government under Section 2 of Santhal Parganas Act, 1855 (37 of 1855), or Section 10 of Regulation of 1872 as the State Government may from time to time direct. The provisions of Section 5 of the Santhal Pargana Settlement Regulation, 1872 which is relevant for considering the issue raised herein is being quoted herein below: - - "5. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court during settlement (1) From the date on which under Section 9 of 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 Sonthal 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 1987] in regard to, - (a) any land or any interest in, or arising out of, land, or (b) the rent or profits of any land, or (c) any village hardship 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 Sonthal 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." It is not in dispute that the State Government had issued such notification in the official gazette dated 5.8.1978 also mentioning therein that during the pendency of the settlement operation, all suits of the kind specified in Section 5 of Regulation III of 1872 shall be heard and determined by the Officers of Settlement, appointed under Section 10 of Regulation, 1872. The said notification (Annexure -4) was issued in exercise of power conferred by Section 10 of Santhal Parganas Settlement Regulation (Regulation 3 of 1872) and Section 30 of Santhal Parganas Rent Regulation (II of 1886) prescribing the rules for conduct of settlement proceedings under the said Regulation in super -session of the earlier notification dated 5.9.1995. Rule XXV of the aforesaid notification stipulated that during the pendency of settlement operation, all suits of the kind specified in Section 5 of Regulation III of 1872 shall be heard and determined by the Officers of Settlement, appointed under Section 10 of Regulation, 1872 and by the Civil Courts when entrusted to hear and dispose of the same by the Settlement Officer in accordance with the prescribed rules and the Commissioner, the Special Officer, the Settlement Officer, and Charge Officers within whose jurisdiction settlement is being made, were vested with appellate and revisional powers. That is how the Assistant Settlement Officers by the judgment dated 7.6.1989 declared the plaintiff/private respondents herein entitled to 1/12th share in the suit property and also for preparation of parcha on that basis in their favour. Defendants were also restrained by decree of permanent injunction for taking delivery of possession by virtue of Title Suit No. 79 of 1965 and the appeal arising therefrom.
(3.) THESE petitioners preferred the appeal against the said judgment and decree in the Court of Charge Officer, Dumka in Title Appeal No. 31 of 1989 also questioning the jurisdiction of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Godda to pass such judgment and decree. The said Title Appeal was however dismissed and by the order dated 26.2.1998 it was held that the plaintiff/private respondents herein are entitled to 1/12th share of the suit property. These orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Godda in Title (Partition) Suit No. 43 of 1983 and order dated 26.2.1998 by the Charge Officer, Dumka in Title Appeal No. 31 of 1989 came to be challenged by the defendants/writ petitioners.;