The court emphasized the protection of a raiyat's rights under the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act and the prohibition of illegal confiscation of property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.

1. The petitioner, who is the raiyat in respect of the land of jamabandi No. 622. Mouza-Pakur, Thana No. 128, is the widow of late Anand Mohan Pandey whose name was recorded in the revenue register and jamabandi was created, according to the petitioner, before vesting of the estate as far back as in the year, 1948. The nature of the land was Gair Mouzra Malick land. The said land was settled with the petitioner's husband by virtue of Amalnama followed by grant of rent receipts and delivery of possession.

2. After vesting of the estate in the then State of Bihar under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1950'), enquiry was made regarding the said jamabandi created by the landlord and the same was maintained and the Jamabandi was opened and continued in the name of the petitioner's husband by the Revenue Officer. Since thereafter her husband had been paying rent to the State and was coming in peaceful possession over the major portion of the land used for cultivation, a house was also constructed, tank was dug for the purpose of irrigation etc. The petitioner's husband also construct a sacred place for worship during his lifetime and he enjoyed ownership and possession thereof without any objection. In the year 1982, however, after lapse of more than 30 years, the petitioner's husband got a notice under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 from Circle Officer, Pakur being Misc. Case No. 9/1982-83. He appeared and placed all the particulars supported by the documents. The Circle Officer, having satisfied with the claim of his legal right and title to the land, dropped the said proceeding of Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 by the order date 9.11.1982. After the death of her husband, the petitioner has been peacefully enjoying the said land and property. She had been paying rent and jamabandi has been running in the name of her husband.

3. Suddenly, in the year 1995, a notice under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 has been issued to the petitioner from the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur in RHC Case No. 1/1973-74. The petitioner filed her reply stating all the facts. She also informed that the settlement in favour of the petitioner's husband has already been examined under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 and a proceeding initiated under Section 4(h) was dropped in the year 1982. After the death of her husband, she has been coming in peaceful possession of the land and property. The petitioner stated that the proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 is not at all maintainable and the same is liable to be dropped.

4. Learned SDO brushed aside all the grounds and ignoring the continuous long running jamabandi of the land in favour of the petitioner's husband, not only cancelled the jamabandi but also directed the property to be included in the Sairat.

5. The petitioner then preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur. She brought the entire facts to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner and took the ground that the SDO had no authority to cancel the long running jamabandi and that too under the provision of Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950. The case does not fall within the ambit of the said provision. She also brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner that similar proceeding under Section 4(h) was initiated in respect of the said land concerning amalnama against her late husband, which was dropped, as the case was not found within the ambit of the said provision of law.

6. The Deputy Commissioner by the impugned order dismissed the appeal observing that only because the petitioner's name is running in the jamabandi, that does not give her any right, interest and title or any right of possession of the land in question. Without applying his mind to the provisions of Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 and Section 36 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as 'SPT Act'), the Deputy Commissioner upheld the finding. of the SDO and reiter