SK. BHOLI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the Respondent-State.

(2.) Respondent No.5 has not entered appearance despite repeated steps for service of notice and also paper publication. It is on the application of the Respondent no.5 being R.E.R Case No.21/1980-81 that the Sub Divisional Officer, Godda, Respondent no.4 directed eviction of the petitioner under Sec. 42 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949 by the impugned order dated 21.5.1984 (Annexure-3) from the piece of land comprising Plot no. 768 and 769 at Mouza Parsha, Thana Mahagama, District Godda measuing 19 dhoors and 2 Kathas 5 dhoors respectively. In appeal being R.M.A. Case No. 20/1984-85 preferred by the aggrieved petitioners, the order dated 21.5.1984 passed by the Respondent no.4 was affirmed by the Respondent no.3, Deputy Commissioner, Godda vide order dated 211986 (Annexure-5). The Revisional Authority, Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division at Dumka, Respondent no.2 also did not find any infirmity in the order of eviction and the affirmed the same in R.M.R. No. 411/1986-87 by the impugned order dated 23.3.2001(Annexure-6).

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the challenge to the impugned decisions has sought to convey that the original recorded tenant, Karpuri Ram, who died leaving behind his widow and son namely Mahendra Singh, Husband of Respondent no.5 had relinquished his claim over the property in question in the year 1932 and handed over the possession to the predecessor of the petitioner namely Mahboob Mandal for construction of the house. Petitioners had remained in continuous possession thereupon since 1932 and have also constructed a house. Petitioners also contended in their show cause before the Respondent no.4 in the Ejectment proceedings that in the recent survey operation their names were recorded in respect of the land in question. They have relied upon the report of the Anchal Amin dated 5.9.1988(Annexure-4) to support their claim of possession over the plot in question since long. Petitioners contended that they have lands contiguous to the land in question which has also been amalgamated. Their predecessor, Mahboob Mandal had constructed the house in 1932 and they are in continuous possession thereupon. They have taken a plea of adverse possession having continued in possession for 12 years before coming into force of the S.P.T. Act, 1949.