Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Ejectment of a person in unauthorised possession of agricultural land. – The Deputy Commissioner may at any time either of his own motion or on an application made to him pass an order for ejectment of any person who has encroached upon, reclaimed, acquired or come into possession of agricultural land in contravention of the Provisions of this Act or any law or anything having the force of law in the Santal Parganas. COMMENTS Sub-divisional Officer can only receive complaints with respect to encroachments and forward them to the Deputy commissioner for passing order of the imposition fo penalty for non-compliance of order for removal of encroachment made under Section 42. {Gobardhan Pandit v.S.D.O., 1985 PLJR 213}. Review of order is permissible in law if the permission is obtained by the court. When the order is obtained by suppression of fact by one party.{Karan Murmu v. state of Bihar, 1994(2) BLJR 993}. Section 42-Review- The Court has jurisdiction to review the order when it is obtained from the Court by suppression of fact by one party.{Karan Murmu v. state of Bihar, 1994(2) BLJR 993: 1994 (2) PLJR 684}. Section 42- The Provision of the Limitation Act is applicable under the Regulation. The acquired under Regulation III of 1872 cannot be ignored. {Bhauri Lal Jain v. sub-Divisional Officer of Jamtara, 1972 PLJR 415: AIR 1973 Pat 1: 1972 BLJR 897: ILR (1972) 51 Pat 533 (FB)}. Section 42- jurisdiction to evict- Evicted person could not substantiate His right and the title over the land in dispute-Acquisition of right by adverse possession- Not open to determine in writ jurisdiction-No declaration could be granted in exercise of writ jurisdiction-Liberty extended to approach court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate declaration and restoration of possession.{Amarnath Sen v.State of Jharkhand,2004(2) JCR 404}. Section 42- There was no incidence of transferability of the raiyati holdings in Santhal Pargana on the date of the commencement of the Constitution, either because there was no right of transferability at any point of time in Santhal Pargana or even alternatively because section 27 of the Regulation had made them non-transferable, which section was placed by section 20 of the Act in 1949, Settlement officer as to offend against Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. {Bhauri Lal Jain v. Sub-Divisional Officer of Jamtara, 1972 PLJR 415: AIR 1973 Pat 1: 1972 BLJR 897: ILR(1972) 51 Pat 533 (FB)}. Section 42-The expression Agricultural Land has not been defined anywhere in the Act and in the ordinary course it may mean a piece of land over which operation of husbandry may be carried on. In this connection it is better to refer section 69 of the Act. It bars acquisition of right inter alia over the official holding grassing land,Jaherthan and Burning and Burial ground etc.Agricultural land includes all the land on which agricultural process are carried on. Land fit for-cultivation or lad required for persons or animals connected with the Agricultural operation required for persons or animals connected with the Agricultural operation usually carried on in the village. {Jhagru Mahto v. Ravan Hansda, 1972 BLJR XXVii (Sum)}. Section 42-Eviction- Settlement made in 1949 contrary to the settlement report the settlee is not the 16 Ana raiyat he is liable to be evicted under section 42 of the Act. Deputy Commissioner can exercise his power under Section 42 and evict the person who is an unauthorised possession of the Agricultural land without any time limit. {Nakul Chandra Mandal v. Commissioner, Bhagalpur Divison, 1979 BLJR 201:1979 BLJ 26: 1979 PLJR 153 (Pat)}. Sections 42,63 and 64. – Jurisdiction under- only 16 ana raiyats are entitled for settlement in Santhal Pargana outsiders cannot take settlement. Deputy Commissioner can exercise his jurisdiction to annual the settlement made in favour of outsiders at any time without nay restriction of time period, (Unless the person has perfected his right before the Act came into force). Revenue Court has jurisdiction to set aside a compromise decree obtained by suppression of its previous decision. The validity of the order of the Deputy Commissioner cannot be challenged in the Civil Court. {Naku Chandra Mandal v. Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, 1979 BLJR 201: 1979 BLJ 26: 1979 PLJR 153}. The word ‘may’ in section 42 means ‘must’ in the scheme or background of the legislation. The Deputy Commissioner, whenever he comes across case of wrongful possession of land held in contravention of the provisions of the Act, is bound to order for eviction as envisaged in the Act. No question of discrimination within the meaning of Art. 14 of the constitution arises and the power under section 42 being not administrative but quasi-judicial, has to be exercised be a ground for infringement of Art. 14 and cannot be corrected in appeal, revision or review. {Bhauri Lal Jain v. sub- Divisional Officer of Jamtara, 1972,PLJR 415 : AIR 1973 pat 1: 1972 BLJR 897: ILR(1972) 51 Pat 533 (FB)}. It is held unanimously that the prescriptive period of 12 years for perfecting the title by adverse possession (The original transfer being in contravention of Section 27 of the Regulation-III,1872) would stop running from the 1st of Nov 1949 being the date fo enforcement of the santal pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949. Held, that were the original transfer is in contravention of the statute:- (i) A transfer in contravention of Sub-section (1) or (2) of section 20 of the Act- Obviously such a transfer would inevitably be after the enforcement of the Act on the 1st of November 1949. (ii) A transfer in contravention of section 27 of Regulation III of 1872 with regard to which the prescription period of 12 years has not elapsed on 1st November, 1949.- In such a case time for perfecting title by adverse enforcement of the Act on Nov 1, 1949, and if the prescriptive period of 12 years is not completed before that the right or title would remain inchoate and cannot be perfected thereafter by virtue of adverse possession. (iii) A transfer in contravention of section 27 or Regulation III of 1872 in which the transfer has been in continuous adverse cultivating possession for 12 years prior to the 1st November,1949.- In view of clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 27 of the said Regulation, the transferee herein became immune to eviction if they had been in continuous cultivating possession for 12 years. He was thus allowed to perfect his title by way of adverse possession. Revision on account of any irregularity of procedure, unless the irregularity has occasioned or is likely to occasion failure of justice.