B.P. Jha, J.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing Annexures-6 and 7. By Annexure-6, the Sub-divisional officer has directed the petitioner to deposit compensation at the rate of Rs.500/- per katha. By Annexure-7, the Sub-divisional officer has directed that the petitioner be evicted from the disputed land.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the state that the proceeding has been initiated under section 42 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the S.P. Tenancy Act). It is relevant to quote section 42 of the S.P. Tenancy Act which runs as follows:-

“The Deputy Commissioner may at any time either of his own motion or 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 provision of this Act or any law or anything having the force of law in the santhal parganas”

On a perusal of Section 42 of the S.P. Tenancy Act, it is clear that the provision will apply in respect of ejectment of a person who has encroached upon an agricultural land in contravention of the provisions of this Act.

3. It is mentioned in paragraph 2 (v) of this petition that section 42 has no application because it was not an agricultural land. It is clear from the finding of the learned Sub-divisional officer that the house is in existence over the disputed land since 1953. Therefore, in my opinion it is not a proceeding under section 42 of the Act. Hence, I reject this contention of the learned counsel for the State.

4. It is also relevant to quote section 16 of this Act which runs as follows:-

"No person shall be ejected from agricultural land, except by an order of the Deputy Commissioner palled under the provisions of this Act;

Provided that where a raiyat is ejected from his entire holding, the Deputy Commissioner may, in his discretion, permit him to remain in possession of his dwelling house only which may thereupon be assessed to rent if the Deputy Commissioner thinks fit."

This provision will also not apply as it is not an ejectment of a person from agricultural land.

5. It is clear from Annexure-4A that the authorities under the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Homestead Act) declared the petitioner as a privileged tenant under section 2 (1) of this Act and his name was recorded in respect of plot no. 142 of village Bahadur Bathan measuring 9 kathas 11 dhurs. A parcha was also issued to him. It is therefore, clear that he was declared privileged tenant in respect of the plot and area in dispute, learned Sub-divisional officer held in Annexure-6 that the authorities has no jurisdiction to settle plot no. 142. The Sub-divisional officer had no jurisdiction to review or revise the order passed under the Homestead Tenancy Act. The order passed by the authority under the Homestead Tenancy Act is final (see section 18 of the Act). Section 19 provides that the provision of this Act has overriding effect over other Acts. Hence, in my opinion, in view of section 19 of the Homestead Tenancy Act it is dear that it will have the effect notwithstanding the provisions of any other law.

6. Learned counsel for the State contends that the provisions of the Homestead Tenancy Act do not apply to the Santhal Parganas, in view of the provisions of the Bihar Scheduled Areas Law Regulation 1 of 1951. By this Regulation certain enactments have been made applicable to the district or the santhal parganas. His contentions that section 42 of the S.P. Tenancy Act applies to the Santhal Perganas Even if the argument of the State Counsel is correct I am of opinion that section 42 or the Act does not apply as it is not an ejectment or a person from agricultural land. It is an ejectment of a person from a house. It is an admitted position that the house is in existence since 1953. Eviction from the house is not contemplated under