K. B. N. Singh, J :

In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the sole petitioner, Ramnarain Sah, has prayed for quashing an order of eviction of the petitioner from certain land, passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Dumka, on the 20th June, 1969 (Annexure 2'), as well as the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Santhal Parganas dated the 3rd December, 1969 (Annexure 3') and the order of the Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division dated the 22nd November, 1970 (Annexure 4'). The latter two orders have affirmed the first order.

2. The petitioner has averred in the writ application that one Narayan Chandra Laha, husband of Firobala Dasi (Respondent No.5), was the recorded Raiyat in respect of Jot No.5 of Village Patharia, Circle No. 20, police Station Saraiyahat, in the District of Santhal Parganas, bearing Plot No. 135 (having an area of 2.26 acres) and plot No. 138 (having an area of 0.10 acre), and classified as Dhani Class II and Class III, respectively. The petitioner's case is that in or about 1944, the petitioner took the aforesaid land on Kurfa settlement and continued in possession for more than 12 years. He was subsequently dispossessed from the land by the husband of Respondent No.5 and he filed a title suit being Title Suit No. 20 of 1959 in the court of the second Subordinate Judge, Dumka, for declaration of his title and recovery of possession. The said suit was compromised on the 3rd November, 1959, in which the title of the petitioner was recognised and his possession was ordered to be restored through court. A copy of the petition of compromise has been filed as Annexure 1'. The petitioner has averred that he executed the decree in Title Execution Case No. 1 of 1960 and obtained delivery of possession. Long thereafter, on the 10th March, 1969, Respondent No.5 filed an application before Sub-divisional Officer, Dumka for eviction of the petitioner from the aforesaid land, characterising the petitioner's possession as unauthorised and for her possession being restored. It is not disputed that this application by Respondent No. 5 was filed under the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 (Bihar Act, XIV of 1949) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner has averred that although the Sub-divisional Officer. Dumka, issued notice of the application to the petitioner, but no notice was served on the petitioner and an exparte order for eviction was passed on the 20th June, 1969 (Annexure 2'). His• appeal before the Deputy Commissioner was dismissed on the 3rd December, 1969 (Annexure 3') and his revision before the Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division was also dismissed on the 22nd November, 1970 (Annexure 4'). Thereafter the petitioner has filed the present writ application on the 20th August, 1971

3. Mr. Prem Lall, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has urged that there was no power in the revenue authorities to annul the decree of a Civil Court under Bihar Act, XIV of 1949, and the said power was conferred for the first time by the Bihar Scheduled Areas Regulation, 1971 (Bihar Regulation I of 1972), which amended Section 20 of the 1949 Act, and gave the revenue authorities power to annul a decree passed, in a Civil suit, by fraud or collusion.

4. Section 3 of Bihar Regulation I of 1972, which amended Section 20 of the Act, reads thus:

3. Amendment of Section 20 of Bihar Act, XIV of 1949-

"In sub-section (5) of Section 20 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 (Bihar Act, XIV of 1949), as substituted by the Bihar Scheduled Areas Regulation, 1969 (Bihar Regulation I of 1969), after the words "any fraudulant method", the words "including decrees obtained in suits by fraud or collusion" shall be inserted."

The relevant portion of sub-section (5) of Section 20 of the Act, as substituted by the Bihar Scheduled Areas Regulation, 1969 (Bihar Regulation I of 1969), omitting the provisos, reads as follows