SMT. MEENA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.05.2006, passed by the respondent No. 2 in R.M.A No. 24/1983-84, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was rejected and further prayer has been made for quashing the order passed by the respondent No. 3 in R.E. Case No. 124/82, whereby the order of eviction was passed against the petitioners by cancelling the order of mutation.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the land under Jamabandi No. 30 of Mouza Khutahari, Thana No. 26, P.S-Jarmundi (hereinafter referred as the 'said land') was recorded in the name of Hardayal Manjhi, son of Raghu Manjhi. The said land was transferred to Maharaj Durbey and Dhiraj Durbey in the year 1936 by Hardayal Manjhi, son of Raghu Manjhi by way of family arrangement. It is claimed by the petitioners that their predecessors were in possession of the said land and were cultivating the same on payment of rent to Handwa Estate till the vesting of the Zamindari. In the year 1965-66, Maharaj Durbey and the sons of Dhiraj Durbey had filed an application for mutation vide Mutation Case No. 14 of 1965-66 and during the pendency of the mutation proceeding, Maharaj Durbey died, whereupon the Circle Officer, Jarmundi ordered for mutation vide order dated 21.03.1967 in favour of the petitioners and thereafter the petitioners paid the rent of the said land. When the Mouza Khutahari was in settlement operation, on the basis of the report of Khanapuri staff, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Nonihaat exercising power under Section 42 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred as the Act) initiated a proceeding for the eviction of the petitioners by means of R.E Case No. 124 of 1982 and finally the order of eviction was passed which was communicated on 05.07.1983. The petitioners preferred appeal being Rev. Misc. Appeal (R.M.A) No. 24 of 1983-84, but the same was also dismissed by holding that the appellants failed to establish 12 years of continuous cultivating possession upon the said land prior to 01.11.1949. During the pendency of the writ petition, a notice dated 17.07.2007 was served to the petitioners by which they were restrained from cultivating the said land and as such, the said notice has also been challenged by way of filing I.A No. 3192 of 2007 which was allowed vide order dated 30.01.2008.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the said land was acquired by the ancestors of the petitioners in the year 1936 by way of family arrangement. It is further submitted that the petitioners have acquired occupancy right over the said land under Section 27 of the Santhal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872. The transaction had taken place nearly 46 years back and as such the same could not have been done in the manner as has been done in the present case without any finding on the question of law of limitation.