S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. Whether the prescriptive period of twelve years for perfecting the title by adverse possession (the original transfer being in contravention of S.27 of Regulation 3 of 1872) would stop running from the 1st of Nov. 1949, being the date of the enforcement of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 - is the significant solitary question arising from a deep-seated conflict of precedents within this Court which has necessitated this reference to the Full Bench.

2. The facts deserve notice within the narrow confines of their relevance to the issue aforesaid. The whole dispute focusses on Jamabandi No. 65 of Mouza Billi, police station Madhupur, which is recorded as Mulraiyat-ka jote in the name of Sitaram Singh 8 annas Mulraiyat of the said Mouza and Jaleshwar Singh, Yudhisthir Singh and Kesturi Devi. The plot stands recorded in the names of different co-sharers. By a sale deed dt. 22nd March, 1939, 38.09 acres of land were sold to one Bimal Kanti Raichoudhary. He got his name duly mutated in the revenue records by an order dt. 27th Nov. 1939, of the Sub-divisional Officer, Deoghar, which, in turns was approved by the Deputy Commissioner, Santhal Parganas, on 28th Dec. 1939. The said Bimal Kanti Raichoudhary again sold the plot along with Mulraiyat rights and interests to Radha Prasad Singh, (father and predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) by a registered sale deed dated the 26th of June, 1950. According to the writ petitioners, so long as Radha Prasad Singh was alive, he remained in peaceful possession over the said 38.09 acres of land of Jamabandi No. 65 as also over the Mulraiyati jote of Jamabandi No. 3 and was also acting as 8 annas Mulraiyat of Mouza Billi.

3. In the year 1970-71 respondent Jagarnath Singh along with seven others filed a petition before the Sub-divisional Officer, Deoghar, challenging the legality of the sale of some portion of Mulraiyat ka jote of Jamabandi No. 65 to Radha Prasad Singh, father of the writ petitioners, and praying for their eviction from the aforesaid land and restoration of the same to them through the agency of the Sub-divisional Court. By his order dated the 19th of Nov. 1971, the learned Sub-divisional Officer held that the original sale in favor of Bimal Kanti Raichoudhary was executed against the express provision of Mulraiyat records. However, he held that because the said sale had been accepted by the Sub-divisional Officer and later approved by the Deputy Commissioner by allowing mutation, he had no authority to challenge the order previously passed by his predecessor. He, therefore, opined that for the redressal of their grievance the applicants should approach the higher Courts. The respondents thereafter preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner and by his order dt. 30th 1975, the Additional Deputy Commissioner allowed the same and directed restoration of the disputed land to the respondents. The writ petitioners then preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division. By his detailed order (Annexure 3), the Commissioner affirmed the findings of the court below that there had been an illegal alienation of the land of Mulraiyati ka jote appertaining to Jamabandi No. 65 of Mouza Billi, and, therefore, the ejectment of the appellants under S.42 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the restoration of the same to the respondents was justified. The appeal was consequently rejected.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the present writ petition has been preferred. When it originally came up for hearing before the Division Bench, the primary point that was apparently pressed on behalf of the writ petitioners was that in any event the vendees had perfected their title by adverse possession by 1970 and they could not, therefore, be evicted under S.42 of the Act. The Bench noticed that the sole point involved was whether the Deputy Commis