BADRI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the order dtd. 10/1/2018, copy of which has been kept at annexure-5, passed by the respondent no.2 'Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, in Revenue Misc. Second Appeal No. 53 of 2002-03 by which the order dtd. 18/1/2003, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka being respondent no.3 in Revenue Misc. Appeal No. 44 of 2001-02 has been confirmed and the order dtd. 15/11/2001, passed in R.E. Case No. 06 of 2000-2001 has been set aside and further prayer has been made for quashing the order dtd. 18/1/2003 (Annexure-4) passed by the respondent no.3 in Revenue Misc. Appeal No. 44 of 2001-2002 and the consequential reliefs.

(3.) The brief facts of the case is that the original private respondents filed RE Case No. 06 of 2001-02 before the respondent no.4 for ejectment of the writ petitioner from the vacant agricultural land adjacent to their house and in the application filed under Sec. 42 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949, it has been categorically mentioned in the last sentence of paragraph no.5 that the petitioner is preparing to take legal steps for eviction of the opposite party to the said petition under Sec. 42 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 who is the writ petitioner herein; from the rented house as well. The respondent no.4 observed that unless and until the forged record of right is cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner, passing any order of ejectment against the petitioner, will not be legal on the part of the respondent no.4. The original private respondents thereafter filed Revenue Misc. Appeal No.44 of 2001-02 before the respondent no.3. The respondent no.3 allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by the respondent no.4 and held that the Privilege Person Patta (P.P. Patta) on the basis of which the writ petitioner is claiming ownership and possession, is a forged one. The writ petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the respondent no.3 filed Revenue Misc. Second Appeal No. 53 of 2002-03 before the respondent no.2 and the respondent no.2 by the impugned order dtd. 10/1/2018, considering the fact that the admitted nature of the land is non-transferable agricultural land, so the land cannot be settled to any person by any means and also took note of the fact that the respondent no.3 in the said order impugned before the respondent no.2 has taken note of the fact that the Privilege Persons Patta (P.P. Patta) issued in Case No. 48/83-84 and 49/83-84 have not been entered in the Register-II of the Circle Office, Dumka and the Privilege Persons Patta (P.P. Patta) is forged and fabricated one, hence such transfer is in violation and contravention of Sec. 42 and 20(5) of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949. So Kurfa itself is invalid and upheld the order of the respondent no.3 and set aside the order of the respondent no.4.