SANTOSH MANDAL Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the petitioner praying, that, an order incorporated in Annexure 4, dated the 16th September, 1970, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara, may be quashed.

(2.) The relevant facts are as follows. Opposite Party No. 2 of this writ application filed a petition under Section 42 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949, for the eviction of the writ petitioner from the lands of A.K.J. No. 126 of Mouza Narainpur. By the impugned order, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer has directed that the writ petitioner be evicted from this land. According to the applicant before the Sub-Divisional Officer, her husband, Moti Rai, entrusted his lands in question to the father of the opposite party before the Sub-Divisional Officer, for cultivation on giving share of the produce regularly. But, as there was some dispute about this matter, it was alleged, that, the opposite party before the Sub-Divisional Officer laid claim to the land itself on the basis of some decree about which the widow denied all knowledge. The writ petitioner, who was the opposite party before the Sub-Divisional Officer, set up a case, that, the disputed land had been transferred by Sukar Rai, father of Moti, to the father of this opposite party and since then the opposite party and his family were in possession. It was alleged, that, on the death of Sukar, some Khorpha settlement had been made in 1358 B.S., acknowledging Jitu's possession. He also alleged, that, in 1967 Moti had filed a title suit which had been compromised, by which the possession of the opposite party before the Sub-Divisional Officer was recognised. On all the materials before the Sub-Divisional Officer, he came to the conclusion, that, the case of the petitioner before him was true. He categorically came to the conclusion, that, the disputed land had been given on the basis of produce, as was the case of the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Officer. In such circumstances, the order of eviction was made.

(3.) The learned counsel for the writ petitioner has contended, that, the petitioner's case of possession for a long time has not been considered by the Sub-Divisional Officer in accordance with law and so the case should be remanded to him for reconsideration. But, we are of opinion, that, the Sub-Divisional Officer had all the materials before him in view, for the conclusion to which he had arrived. In a summary proceeding he has clearly determined, that, the case of the writ petitioner was not acceptable and that the case present opposite party No. 2 was true. In such circumstances, we do not think, that, we should interfere in our writ jurisdiction. The writ application, therefore, fails and is dismissed but without costs. The order of stay stands vacated.