KISHUN BARAI Vs. HURO PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the plaintiffs from a decision of the Additional District Judge of Dumka confirming a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Deoghar dismissing their suit for recovery of possession of plot No. 1026 lying in mouza Rohni.

(2.) The plaintiffs claim to have been in possession of the land in question for more than 12 years and to have acquired right of occupancy therein. It is alleged that at the instigation of their enemies the tenants who were wrongly recorded as being in possession of this land filed Title suit No. 17 of 1941 against the plaintiffs in the Court of the Deputy Collector, Deogbar, for recovery of possession of the disputed land. That suit was, however, compromised on 26 April 1941. In the petition of compromise which was made a part of the decree the possession of the plaintiffs over this very land was acknowledged, and it was stated that the plaintiff of that suit, father of the present defendant 3, was wrongly recorded as tenant of this land although he never had possession over it. It appears that after this compromise was recorded and Title Suit No. 17 of 1941 was dismissed on 28th July 1941, defendant 1, Huro Pandey, filed an objection before the Sub-divisional Officer, Deoghar, under Regulation III of 1872 for eviction of the plaintiffs on the ground that they had illegally got the land sold to them by the recorded tenants. That objection was registered as an eviction case under the said Regulation, being case No. 203 of 1941-42. On enquiry being made by a Kanungo, the Sub- divisional Officer recommended to the Deputy Commissioner, Santal Parganas, for the eviction of the plaintiffs from the plot in suit and settlement of the same with some other deserving raiyat. The Deputy Commissioner, however, set aside the Sub-divisional Officer's recommendation, and did not pass the order of eviction. It appears that Huro Panday, defendant 1, then moved the Commissioner of the Bhagalpur Division who, exercising his revisional jurisdiction, set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner, and directed the Sub-divisional Officer of Deoghar to evict the plaintiffs and settle the plot with defendant 1. The plaintiffs case is that they have been wrongly evicted from the land in suit and the order of eviction passed by the revenue authorities was ultra vires and with, out jurisdiction.

(3.) Defendant l, Huro Pandey only, contested the suit. His evidence is that the order passed by the Commissioner under Regulation III of 1872 evicting the plaintiffs is final and conclusive and cannot be set aside by the civil Court. He also alleges that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the land for more than 12 years and had not acquired a right of occupancy therein, that the compromise petition and the decree passed in title suit of 1941 were collusive and fraudulent, and as such nullity and did not confer any title on the plaintiffs.