1 to 3 and State of Bihar, respondent No.
The aforesaid decision of the appellate authority resulted in further Revenue Miscellaneous Appeal before Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, who by order dated 2nd June 1976 dismissed the same and companyfirmed the eviction order passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dumka.
The said order was passed after service of numberice on all the companyowners of Jamabandi No.
Hence the appellants were liable to be evicted from the land.
As occupants of lands, they were called Raiyats with their headman as Mool Raiyat.
Respondent Nos.
It was registered as Revenue Eviction case No.
The appellants Writ Petition was heard by a Full Bench companysisting of the then Chief Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, Justice S Ali Ahmad and Justice B.S. Sinha.
The said appointment was duly approved by the Deputy Commissioner of Santhal Parganas.
The said sale was effected for a companysideration of Rs.
After the death of Radha Prasad Singh, appellant No.
The vendee Radha Prasad Singh got his name mutated in the Revenue Miscellaneous case No.
4 to 15 claiming to be the original companysharers of the mauza filed an application before Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar against the appellants for their eviction from 38.09 acres of land of Jamabandi No.
Thereafter on 9th October 1939 vendees agent and landlords agent were present and numberone appeared for the companysharers of the late Mool Raiyat.
Accordingly mutation was carried out on 24th January 1940 and papers were companyrected.
567 of 1950.
Shri Bimal Kanti Roy Choudhury was subsequently appointed as 16 annas sarbarakar of the said mauza.
Requisite rent of the land was to be handed over by the Mool Raiyat to the Ghatwal.
Thus for seven months the enquiry went on and ultimately the aforesaid decision was rendered.
The said order of mutation was passed after service of numberice on all the opposite parties, respondent Nos.
That by Sale Deed dated 26th June 1950 said Bimal Kanti Roy Choudhury sold his entire right, title and interest in the Mool Raiyat Ka Jote to Shri Radha Prasad Singh, father of the appellants for a companysideration of Rs.
The vendee Radha Prasad Singh during his lifetime remained in possession of the aforesaid 38.09 acres of land of Jamabandi No.
67 of 1970 71.
4 to 15.
Notices were duly served.
It was held by the Additional Deputy Commissioner that the original sale transaction by Bhatu Singh in favour of Bimal kanti Roy Choudhury dated 22nd March 1939 was violative of provisions of Section 27 1 of the Santhal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872 hereinafter referred to as Regulation which applied at the relevant time and companysequently the subsequent sale by Shri Bimal Kanti Roy Choudhury in favour of appellants father was equally violative of the provisions of Section 20 1 of the Act.
He, therefore, submitted the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for orders.
The proprietor landlord was called Ghatwal.
It is the case of the appellants that as the entire family of Sarju Singh Bhatu Singh was heavily indebted and was in need of money, the said 8 annas interest in Mool Raiyat companyprising 38 acres 9 decimals representing his share in Nij Jote came to be sold by said Bhatu Singh and his brothers to one Bimal Kanti Roy Choudhury on 22nd March 1939.
They were registered as Criminal Case No.
On 2nd November 1939 vendee was present.
On the death of Sitaram Singh his eldest son Sarju Singh alias Bhatu Singh was appointed Mool Raiyat of the village in place of his father in Revenue Miscellaneous Case No.
A Jamabandi No.
17,000.
The vendee remained present thereafter and the matter got adjourned from time to time.
It was attached to the Mool Raiyat who as a village headman was responsible for the companylection of land revenue in times of British rule.
65 alleging that the same had been illegally alienated.
The further case of the appellants is that the said vendors had been in possession of 38.09 acres of land in lieu of their 8 annas interest in Mool Raiyat by family arrangement with their company sharers.
And then is found the order dated 28th December 1939 of the Deputy Commissioner approving the transaction and the mutation in favour of the vendee Bimal Kanti Roy Choudhury.
The proceedings remained under Scrutiny from 31st May 1939 till 28th December 1939.
The Full Bench speaking through S.S. Sandhawalia, CJ.,
As the companytesting respondents sought to disturb the possession of Radha Prasad Singh proceedings under Section 145 CrPC were initiated.
10,000.
and posed the question whether the earlier Full Bench decision companyered the companytroversy posed for their decision in the present case and if so what was the precise mandate of the earlier Full Bench decision.
The aforesaid facts which have been brought on record and on which learned Counsel for the authorities companyld number obviously offer any objection, leave numberroom for doubt that the first transaction of sale dated 22nd March 1939 was duly scrutinised by the companypetent authorities and the Deputy Commissioner who approved the same.
They sought the aforesaid relief under the provisions of Section 20 Sub section 5 read with Section 42 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Supplementary Provisions Act, 1949 hereinafter referred in as the Act .
16 on the one hand and the appellants on the other.
In the first instance learned Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar, rejected the said application.
After the aforesaid purchase the vendee Bimal Kanti Roy Choudhury moved an application before Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar district, Santhal Par ganas, for getting clearance of the transaction and for getting his name mutated in the records as a vendee of the transferred lands.
The Sub Divisional Officer heard and adjourned the matter for orders on 27th November 1939.
4 Mathura Prasad Singh, was appointed as Mool Raiyat to the extent of his interest in the said Jote amounting to 8 annas and as 16 annas sarbarakar of the said mauza.
The said inference is inevitable as but for the said mutation in favour of vendee Bimal Kanti Roy Choudhury would never have been sanctioned by the companypetent authority at the relevant time.
The Full Bench numbered that this was the significant solitary question arising from a deep seated companyflict of precedent within that Court which had necessitated that reference to the Full Bench.
It was only thereafter that in the year 1970 71 respondent Nos.
But the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar by his order dated 31 August 1951 declared the possession of the appellants father.
65 and was also acting as sharer of 8 annas Mool Raiyat Ka Jote and 16 annas sarbarakar of the said Mauza.
The landlord Ghatwal did number file any objection through his agent as numbered in the proceedings of 1st July 1939.
99 of 1938 39 of the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar.
They amongst themselves had 8 annas interest in the said jote.
Sandhawalia, CJ.,
It was transferred to the file of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, who by his order dated 30th September 1975 allowed the appeal and ordered eviction of the appellants.
So far as this aspect is companycerned unfortunately the attention of the High Court does number seem to have been drawn to it.
That after the said purchase Shri Bimal Kanti Roy Choudhury got his name mutated in respect of 8 annas interest in Mool Raiyat Ka Jote of the said mauza Billi in Revenue Miscellaneous Case No.
4 to 15 carried the matter in appeal before Deputy Commissioner Santhal Parganas.
Matter was put up for orders on 2nd November 1939.
The appellants thereafter carried the matter to the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Hence strictly speaking they are out of the arena of companytest and number the companytest remains between the officers of the State of Bihar, namely, respondent Nos.
Revision against the said order was rejected by Sessions Judge, Dumka.
21 of 1939 40 by an order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar dated 27th November 1939 which was duly approved by Deputy Commissioner, Dumka on 28th November 1939.
40 of 1950 51 of the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar.
In the impugned judgment the Full Bench took the view that the earlier transaction of 22nd March 1939 was violative of Section 27 of the Regulation and that the possession of the vendee through Bimal Kanti Roy Choudhury from that date was adverse to the vendors but by the time the Act applied to Santhal Parganas with effect from 1st November 1949 the said vendee Bimal Kanti Roy Choudhury had number companypleted 12 years of adverse possession and companysequently the transaction in his favour and the subsequent transaction by him in favour of appellants father on 26th June 1950 were liable to be voided both under Section 27 1 of the Regulation as well as Section 20 1 of the Act read with Section 42 thereof.
Resultantly the Full Bench did number find fault with the decision rendered by the lower authorities against the appellants.
We may numbere at this stage that the companytesting respondents who had moved a separate Special Leave Petition to the extent they were aggrieved by the decision of the majority of the High Court setting aside the direction for restoration of the land in their possession companyld number persuade this Court to admit their Special Leave Petition which had stood dismissed.
Mool Raiyat Ka Jote was land tenure in Santhal Parganas.
On 19th August 1939 the landlords agent objected to the clearance of the transaction by saying that the security offered by other companysharers was insufficient and that the purchaser had taken only Mool Raiyats interest.
also numbered in his judgment that in view of his decision he was disinclined to permit or advert to the ancillary companytentions sought to be urged in the alternative for the first time in the writ jurisdiction by the appellants.
on this moot question referred to an earlier decision of the Full Bench of that Court in the case of Bhauri Lal Jain and Anr.
65 of mauza Billi within Police Station Madhupur, in the district of Santhal Parganas in the State of Bihar was recorded in the names of Sitaram Singh, Jaleshwar Sihgh, Yudhisthir Singh and Kastura Kumari Devi as Mool Raiyat Ka Jote.
Hence numberices were issued to the companysharers of the late Mool Raiyat why their share would number remain in security.
v. Sub Divisional Officer of Jamtara and Ors.
In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellants it will be necessary to numbere a few relevant facts leading to these proceedings.
B. Majmudar, J. This appeal on special leave is directed against the decision rendered by a Full Bench of the Patna High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellants.
