Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Ins. Be Sec. 2(b) of Bihar Act 17 of 1976. Financial institution, or a company or a corporation owned by or in which not less than fifty-one percent of share capital is held by the State Government or the Centre government or partly by the State Government and partly by the Central government and which has been set up with a view to provide agricultural credit to cultivators, but if the holding or portion thereof belongs to a raiyat who is member of aboriginal tribes or aboriginal castes, it shall not be sold to any person who is not a member of the aboriginal tribes or aboriginal castes. 1[(5) If at any time it comes to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner that a transfer of land belonging to a raiyat who is a member of the Scheduled Tribes as specified in Part III of the Schedule to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, has taken place in contravention of sub-section (1) or (2) or by any fraudulent method 2[including decrees obtained in suits by fraud or collusion’, he may, after giving reasonable opportunity to the transferees, who is proposed to be evicted, to show cause and after making necessary enquiry in the matter evict the transferee from such land without payment of compensation and restore it to the transferor or his heir, or in the case the transferor or heir is not available or is not willing to agree to such restoration, re-settle it with another raiyat belonging to the Scheduled Tribes according to the village custom for the disposal of an abandoned holding: Provided that if the transferee has within 30 years from the date of transfer, constructed any building or structure on such holding or portion thereof, the Deputy Commissioner, shall, if the transferor is not willing to pay the value of the same, order the transferee to remove the same withing a period of six months from the date of the order, or within such extended time not exceeding two years from the date of the order as the Deputy Commissioner may allow, failing which the Deputy Commissioner may get such building or structure removed: Provided further that where the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that the transferee has constructed a substantial structure or building on such holding or portion thereof before coming into force of the Bihar Scheduled Areas Regulation, 1969, he may, notwithstanding any other provisions of the Act, validate such a transfer where the transferee either, makes available to the transferor an alternative holding or portion thereof, as the case may be, of the equivalent value in the vicinity or pays adequate compensation to be determined by the Deputy Commissioner for rehabilitation of the transferor: Provided also that if after an enquiry the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that the transferee has acquired a title by adverse possession and that the transferred land should be restored or re-settled, he shall require the transferor or his heir or another raiyat, as the case may be to deposit with the Deputy Commissioner such sum of money as may be determined by the Deputy Commissioner having regard to the amount for which the land was transferred or the market value of the land, as the case may be, and the amont of any compensation for improvements effected to land which the Deputy, Commissioner may deem fair and equitable] 1[Explanation.- For the purpose of this section a financial institution means,- i. a banking company as defined in the Banking regulation Act 1949, ii. the State Bank of India constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, iii. a subsidiary Bank as defined in the State Bank of India) Subsidiary Bank) Act, 1959, iv. a corresponding new bank constituted under the banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, v. Agricultural Refinance Corporation constituted under the Agricultural Refinance Corporation Act, 1963, vi. the Agro- Industries Corporation, vii. the Agricultural Finance Corporation Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and viii. any other institution as may be notified in this behalf as a financial institution by the State Government in the Official Gazette.] COMMENTS Section 20- Applicability of – Agricultural land changed to Basauri land- Became transerable- Such transfer do not fall within the mischief of Section 20 of the Act. [ Dhena Hansda and Ors. V. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2003(3) JCR 230(jhr)] Section 20- Eviction application- Eviction application-Rejected-Appeal against-Order became Revision against-Allowed-Evocation application stand rejected-Order became final and conclusive-Land acquisition took place more than 60 years prior to the filing of eviction application-Transfer thereafter took place in 1938- Nature of land changed as basauri land-Not open for the settlement officer to declare the acquisition of land illegal merely as provision of Section 53 of the S.P.T. Act,1949 has been declared unconstitutional-Acquisition of land in year 1937-38 is valid. [Dhena Hansda and Ors. V. State of Jharkhand and Ors, 2003(3) JCR 130 (Jhr]. Section 20 – Whether the Revenue Court has jurisdiction to evict a person who had come in possession of the land on the basis of a compromise decree of the civil court if that compromise was collusive. It is held, that a transferee cannot perfect his title on the basis of collusive decree of a civil Court. Revenue Court has jurisdiction to evict the person from the land which is obtained by fraud or collusion. [Rajo Mian v. Puram Mian, 1987 BLJR 91]. Section 20(1), 20(2) and 20(5) as amended by the Bihar Scheduled Areas Regulation, 1969 (Bihar Regulation 1 of 1969), State List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution is not volatile of being repugnant to the provisions of Limitation Act. The provisions do not ultra virus of the Articles 13,14,19(1) (f) and 31 of the Constitution as being the Section 42 of the Act is a legislatioin in respect of Entry No. 21 lf List II. [Bhauri Lal Jain v. Sub-Divisiional Officer, 1972 PLJR 415 (FB) : AIR 1973 Pat1]. Section 20(5) as amended by Bihar Scheduled Areas Regulation, 1971 Pat 1]. Regulation 1 of 1972)- Compromise decree obtained in a suit in contra-venation of the Acts comes under the ambit of sub-section (5) of Section 20 of the Act. Revenue authorities has jurisdiction to evict the person from the land which is a transfer by the fraudulent medhod. [Ram Narain Sahv. State of Bihar, 1976 BLJR 15]. Section 20- Before the enactment of Scheduled Area Regulation, 1969, Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to evict a transferee from the land who has perfected his right through continuous possession of 12 years but now under Section 20(5) the Deputy Commissioner has wide discretion to evict such transferee. [Kheyali Bhaiya v. Bisan Mahton, 1957 BLJR 821]. Sections 20 (5) and 42- There is a distinction between Section 20(5) land 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. [Deonarain Singh v. Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, 1985 BLJR 185: 1985 PL JR 1 (FB)]. Sections 20(1), 20(5) and 42- Section 20(1) of the Act runs parallel to the scheme of earlier provisions of Section 27(1) of the Regulation, 1872. Therefore the authorities have no occasion to invoke the provisions of Section 20(1) or Section 20(5) of the Act read with Section 42 thereof in connection of this later transaction of the sale dated 26th June, 1950. [Deonarayan Singh v. Commissioner, Bhagalpur, 1997 (2) BL JR 1352: 1998 (2) P L J R (SC) 3]. Section 20- Family partition of the family property cannot hit by Section 20 of the Santal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 and Section 27 of the Santall Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872. Mutation order passed by the Circle Officer cannot be cancelled without giving opportunity of being heard. [Ramjiban Sahah v. State of Bihar, 1978 B L J 337]. Section 20- In contravention of the provisions of Regulation III of 1872 settlement was done, the person is coming in continuous possession may acquire title by adverse possession. Order of eviction cannot be passed against the person who is coming in possession prior to the coming into force of this Act. [Godo Mahto v. State of Bihar, 1980 BL J 72]. Sections 20- Te provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 20 of the Act are prospective in operation. The provision did not bar acquisition of title by adverse possession. The person came in possession through settlement in contravention of provision of Section 27 of Regulation iii of 1872, by remaining in possession over the land more than twelve years before the application of eviction was filed. [Most. Pairia v. Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, 1978 B L J 272]. Sections 20- The land belongs to a female cannot claim the land inheritance. Land will revert to the heirs of her father. [Krishna Prasad Sharma v. State of Bihar, 1998 (3) P L J R 179]. Sections 20- Occupancy right can be acquired by a person by prescriptor of time on the expiry of said period. [Suryabansh Upadhyay v. Awdhesh Choudhary, 1999 (2) P L J R 173]. Sections 20- Limitation from 12 years to 30 years is only for the members of the non-tribal where there is a case between tribal to tribal, the limitatior is twelve years. [Dhani Manjhi v. Ranga Manjhi, 1999 (1) PL J R 605] Sections 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) P L J R 4888 (Pat)]. Sections 20 and 42- When the SDO himself was drawing with conclusion on the order of the dismissal for default in the title eviction suit he has committed an error without giving opportunity of hearing to either parties and without deciding the whole matter on the basis of the petition filed under Section 20 by the respondent No. 5 and reply to the show-cause given by the petitioner. The whole process by which the revenue authorities had decided the disputed point of fact and law is unwarranted and the same cannot be sustained. [Ram Lal Tatwa v. State of Bihar, 2000 (1) P L J R 488 (Pat)]. Sections 20(5) and 42- Under Section 20(5) of S P T Act matter must be considered under proviso (ii) of sub-section (5) where there is substantial structure claimed to constructed by the party over the land in question price to coming into force of the Bihar Scheduled Area Regulation, 1969. [Nandgope Bhadra v. State of Bihar, 2000 (3) B L J 738 (Pat)]. Section 42 and 20 (5)- The case of the petitioner is that they have go 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 year prior to the coming into force of the Act, 1949 the status 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) PL J R 994 : 2000 (2) B L J 1295 (Pat)]. Section 20 (5)- Transfer made even prior to coming into force of the Scheduled Area Regulation. [Amrendra Nath Dutta v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 Pat 151: 1983 B L J R 609: 1983 BLT (Rep) 111: 1983 B B C J 254]. Section 20(5)- Forcible dispossession will come under the purview of Schedule Area Regulation,