GODO MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners challenge the order of eviction passed under section 20 (5) of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 (Bihar Act XIV of 1949), hereinafter called the Act. The order of eviction as passed by the Sub divisional Officer, Dumka, has been affirmed on appeal.

(2.) The petitioners claim to have taken settlement of certain lands from the recorded raiyats in March and April, 1949 ; this was before the Act came into force as the date on which it came into force is 1-11-49. The petitioners further claim that after the alleged settlement they have continued in possession and have, in fact, made certain constructions also. They thus claim to have acquired a right to these lands on the basis of adverse possession.

(3.) The authorities below have proceeded on the basis that once there is a claim of acquisition of title contrary to the provisions of the Act aforesaid or the Santhal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872 (Regulation No. 3 of 1872) hereinafter called the Regulation, they have to pass an order of eviction if the alleged infringement is brought to their notice. This does not appear to be the correct position in law, as has been explained in the Full Bench case of this Court reported in Bhauri Lal Jain v. Sub-divisional Officer of Jamtara, (1972 B. L J. R. 897). The position as explained in that case is that if there is, in fact, a settlement contrary to the provisions of the Regulation aforesaid then, although the settlement may not be valid, a party actually in continuous possession may acquire title by adverse possession. This of course, only relates to settlements made prior to the coming into force of the Act. In this case the position, therefore, is that if the petitioners are able to prove that on the basis of the all alleged settlement they came in possession prior to coming into force of the Act and they continued in possession adversely to the real owners so as to 10 acquire title by adverse possession, there can be no doubt that the order of eviction could not be passed. If however, the authorities on proper investigation of facts came to the conclusion that there was no settlement as alleged or that the petitioners have not been in continuous possession so as to acquire title by adverse possession, there can and should be an order of eviction of the petitioners. Since the relevant facts have not been investigated by the authorities below, the orders under challenge cannot be sustained. They are, therefore, set aside and the case is remanded to the Sub-divisional Officer to investigate the relevant facts and to decide the case in accordance with law as laid down in the Full Bench decision mentioned above. The application is thus allowed. There would be no order as to costs.