SURENDRA MANDAL Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ application praying that the orders passed by the Subdivisional Officer, Jamtara dated the 7th January, 1970 (Annexure 1) and the Deputy Commissioner, Santal Parganas, dated the 13th July, 1970 (Annexure 2) may be quashed. It appears that opposite party No. 3 of this writ application had filed an application before the Sub-divisional Officer, Jamtara, alleging that the writ petitioner was in illegal occupation of his lands comprised of eight plots. The case of the writ petitioner was that in 1358 B. S. opposite party No. 3 had taken a loan of Rs. 2,500/- and had settled the disputed lands in Korfa settlement in that year. The writ petitioner had also alleged that opposite party No. 3 had filed a title suit in 1968 with respect to these lands, which suit was later on withdrawn. Thus the writ petitioner had claimed title to the disputed lands.

(2.) The Subdivisional Officer held, on the materials on record, that the case of oral Korfa settlement was not acceptable and the title suit was held to have been a collusive suit. Thus, it was held that Section 20 of the Santal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 had been contravened and the writ petitioner was evicted from the lands in question. On appeal, the Deputy Commissioner has affirmed the order of eviction.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and we do not think that any acceptable point has been raised for quashing the impugned orders. The title suit, which was withdrawn has been held to be a collusive affair and the alleged Korfa settlement has not been found to be a believable transaction. Therefore, on the facts found, the order of eviction had rightly followed. In the circumstances of the case, the writ application must fail and it is dismissed, but, without costs. The order of stay passed on the 5th July, 1971 is vacated.