KHUDDUS MIAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 16.06.2009 passed in R.M.R. Case No.82 of 1990-91 by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka has been assailed, whereby and whereunder the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in R.E. Case No.2 of 1983-84 dated 01.06.1985 and the order dated 07.07.1990 passed in Rev. Misc. Appeal No.46 of 1985-86 have been reversed by holding the transfer of the land in between the petitioner and the private respondents within the fault of Section 20 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition is that an application was filed by the petitioner under Section 42 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1949') before the Sub Divisional Officer, Jamtara being registered as R.E. Case No.2 of 1983-84 for ejectment of respondent second party from the land bearing Plot Nos.386, 387 and 388 of mouza Kadmitanr who have encroached illegally and started construction over the aforesaid land. The private respondents have been called upon by the authority wherein they have put forth their defence denying the allegation of illegal transfer on the basis of Kurfa but the Sub Divisional Officer, Jamtara disbelieving the transfer on the basis of the aforesaid Kurfa, has passed an order holding the transfer in contravention of provision of Section 42 of the Act, 1949 and directed the private respondent for their eviction from the disputed land.

(3.) Mr. Nitya Nand Prasad Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order 16.06.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, has vehemently submitted that the revisional authority while reversing the order passed by the original authority as well as the appellate authority has committed gross illegality in accepting the stand of the private respondent about the transfer of land on the basis of Kurfa said to have been entered prior to coming into the Act, 1949 but according to him no such chit of paper has been annexed by the private respondent before the two authorities and therefore, the stand about the transfer on the basis of Kurfa has been disbelieved by the appellate authority as well as the original authority and even before the revisional authority no such documents has been produced for transfer of land on the basis of Kurfa but the stand has been accepted by the revisional authority by reversing the finding recorded by the original as well as the appellate authority. He further submits that since there is two concurrent finding based upon the facts and the revisional authority ought to have appreciated the documents pertaining to the aforesaid Kurfa but according to the private respondent Kurfa was the sole piece of evidence prior to coming into effect the Act, 1949 but without appreciating and looking to any original document to that effect, the finding recorded by the original and appellate authority has been reversed which cannot be said to be sustainable in the eye of law and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the same is fit to be quashed.