BEJO MAHTO Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ application, praying that an order incorporated in Annexure 5, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara, may be quashed.

(2.) The relevant facts are as follows. Opposite party No. 2 had filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara, under Section 21 (6) of the Santal Purganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949, against the writ petitioner, alleging, that, this opposite party had given some of her Jamabandi lands to the writ petitioner by executing a registered Bhuguibandha deed, and even after the expiry of the period of the deed, the writ petitioner had not given up possession. The writ petitioner had filed a show cause, slating, that, he had never taken any land by Ehugutbandha transaction from this opposite party and alleged, that, in 1940 the husband of opposite party No. 2 had transferred some land to the writ petitioner absolutely for consideration. On a consideration of the materials on record, the Sub-Divisional Officer has come to the conclusion, that, the writ petitioner's denial of any execution of Bhugutbhandha deed was false and the officer came to the conclusion, that, the writ petitioner was continuing in possession after the expiry of the term of the Bhugutbandha deed. Therefore, the writ petitioner was fined Rs. 100/-for not giving up the lands in question and some alternative fine has also been imposed.

(3.) The main point that has been urged on behalf of the petitioner is, that, even assuming that the Bhugutbandha deed had commenced on the 17th March, 1964, its terms of six years had not expired till the 16th March, 1970, but opposite party No. 2 had applied under Section 21 (6) prematurely on 29th August, 1969. Therefore, it is contended, that, the revenue miscellaneous case instituted by opposite party No. 2 ought to have failed in limine. It appears from the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, that, the earlier Bhugutbandha deed had been executed in 1958 and, in any event, when the order was passed by the officer on 16th June, 1970, the period of Bhugutbandha deed of 1964 had also expired. In such circumstances, we do not think that we should interfere with the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The writ application, therefore, fails and is dismissed, but without costs. The order of ad interim stay stands vacated.