BHAURI LAL JAIN Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these three applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the questions for determination are almost similar, though not precisely the same. The question of vires of Sections 20 (1) and 42 of the Santal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 (Bihar Act XIV of 1949 -hereinafter referred to as the Act), has been raised in the first two cases, while the question of vires of sub -section (5) of Section 20 of the Act, as amended by the Bihar Scheduled Areas Regulation, 1969 (Bihar Regulation I of 1969), has been raised in the third case. On account of the importance of the questions involved, the cases have been referred to a Full Bench, and, with the consent of the parties, these have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) IN the first case (C. W. J. C. No. 1573 of 1970), the order sought to be quashed is an order of the Sub -Divisional Officer, Jamtara, dated the 27th June, 1970 (contained in Annexure '6' to the writ application), holding that the petitioners had illegally and fraudulently occupied the lands belonging to respondent No. 2 and directing their ejectment under Section 42 of the Act. In the second case (C. W. J. C. No. 1793 of 1970), the order sought to be quashed is another order of the Sub -Divisional Officer, Jamtara, dated the 30th September, 1970 (contained in Annexure '3' to the said writ application), holding that certain lands belonging to respondents 2 to 5 have been unauthorisedly transferred, and directing eviction of the petitioners therefrom, under Section 42 of the Act. In the third case (C. W. J. C. No. 56 of 1971), the order sought to be quashed is also an order of the Sub -Divisional Officer, Jamtara, dated the 9th December, 1970 (contained in Annexure '3' to the said writ application), ordering eviction of the petitioner of that case from certain plots of land, under Section 20 (5) of the Act, as amended by Bihar Regulation I of 1969, holding that possession has been taken by the present petitioner in contravention of Section 20 (1) of the Act, and directing that the land be restored to the rightful owner, respondent No. 2.

(3.) SHORTLY put, the defence of the petitioners in all the three cases before the Sub -Divisional Officer was that they have been in possession of the lands in question for more than 20 to 30 years, and, therefore, they acquired indefeasible title, by adverse possession. I have refrained from mentioning the cases of the parties in detail, as I shall have occasions to refer to them after deciding the question of vires of the statutes raised in these cases.