Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Power to make rules.-(1) The 1[State] Government may, by notification, make rules for carrying out the objects of this Act. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the 2[State] Government may make rules with respect to all or any of the following matters,- (i) the manner of ascertaining the consent of resident jamabandi raiyat under Section 5; (ii) the manner in which a village headman shall discharge his duties; (iii) the manner in which copies of jamabandi will be certified under Section 8; The Prescriptive period of 2 years for perfecting the title by adverse possession (in case of a transfer which was originally in contravention of Section 27 of Regulation III of 1872) would stop running on the date of the enforcement of the Act i.e. the 1st November, 1949. [Deo Narayan Sing v. Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, 1985 BLJR 185: 1985 PLJR 1 (FB)]. Sections 20(5) and 42- There is a distinction between Section 20(5) and Section 42-Original raiyat will be put in possession under Section 20(5) by the competent authority. But under Section 42 no such power is given to the authority. [Deonarian Singh v. Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, 1985 BLJR 185 :1985 PLJR 1 (FB)]. Section 20 and 42- The order passed by the Revenue Authorities without deciding the disputed points and without giving opportunity to the parties concerned is bad in law. The revenue authorities are bound to decide the points on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. [Ram Lal Tatwa v. State of Bihar, 2000 (1) PLJR 488 (Pat)]. Sections 20(5) and 42- Unbder Section 20(5) SPT Act matter must be considered under proviso (ii) of suc-section (5) where there is substantial structure claimed to be constructed by the party over the land in question prior to coming into force of the Bihar Scheduled Area Regulation, 1969. [Nandgopal Bhadra v. State of Bihar, 2000 (3) BLJ 738 (Pat)]. Section 42 and 20(5)_Fraudulent method also includes collusive compromise decree and it is a violation of Section 20(5) of the Act. It is a collusive decree. The case of the petitioner is that they have got settlement of land in question under the provision of Section 20 of the Act and they have proved before the authority concern that they are in possession for more than 12 years prior to the coming into force of the Act, 1949 the status of petitioner in that view of the matter must be held to be trespasser. The expression any fraudulent method” also includes a collusive compromise decree. [Banshidhar Pal v. State of Bihar, 2000 (1) PLJR 994: 2000 (2) BLJR 1295 (Pat)] CHAPTER V RENT