The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on the provisions of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provision) Act, 1949 to determine jurisdiction and the lack of evidence to support the petitioner's claim of possession beyond 12 years of the Act.

1. Heard Mr. Niraj Kishore, counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Akshay Kr. Thakur, A.C. to S.C.(L&C) appearing for the State.

3. Heard Mr. Anand Kr. Sinha, counsel for the respondent no. 4

4. Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar, counsel for the respondent no. 5.

5. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:-

a. For quashing the order dated 23.02.2004 as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Division at Dumka in Miscellaneous Revision Case No. 62 of 2003-04.

b. For quashing the order dated 25.07.2002 as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition passed by the Settlement Officer, Santhal Pargana, Dumka in T.L. Case No. 23 of 2001.

6. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted as under:

a. The property involved in this case is appertaining to J.N. No. 39 of the last Gantzor's Survey Settlement of Mouza Choupa No. 789 within police Station Mohanpur District Deoghar having plot No.967, 487, 488, 490, 766, 787 of last Gantzor's Survey Settlement (Plot No. 935, 638, 640, 933 and 953 of present Survey Settlement appertaining to J.B. No. 53 of Mouza Choupa No. 789) having total area of 11.57 acres which according to the petitioner was recorded in the name of Ruplal Mahatha.

b. Said Ruplal Mahatha settled the said land in name of the father of the petitioner namely Sarju Sah in the year 1936 and thereafter the father of the petitioner came in the exclusive possession of the property in specifically in the year 1946. Ruplal Mahatha executed of khurfa in favour of the father of the petitioner in the year 1968. The father of the petitioner applied for mutation of land before the Circle Officer, Mohanpur within the District of Deoghar which was numbered as Mutation Case no. 55 of 1968-69 and the mutation was allowed in favour of the father of the petitioner.

c. Hari Mohan Mahatha was the son of Ruplal Mahatha .

d. A certificate case was instituted bearing Certificate Case No. 167 of 1956-57 against Hari Mohan Mahatha. Sarju Sah, father of the petitioner paid certificate dues and exonerated Hari Mohan Mahatha from the liability.

e. In a proceeding u/s 145 of Cr.P.C. in Cr. Case No. 43 of 1978 the Executive Magistrate vide order dated 04.07.1979 confirmed the possession of the petitioner.

f. Earlier one Ram Dayal Manjhi filed an application for restoration being R.E. Case No. 56 of 1968-69 in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar which was ultimately decided against him.

g. Suddenly, respondent no. 4 filed an application for restoration before the respondents no. 3. This case was numbered as This case was numbered as T.L. Case no 23 of 2001.The respondent no. 3 passed an order of eviction of the petitioner and directed for opening jamabandi in the name of heir of the recorded raiyat vide impugned order dated 25.7.2002.

h. Against this order dated 25.07.2002, the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Revision Case No. 62 of 2003-04 before the respondent no. 2 and the respondent no. 2 vide impugned order dated 23.02.2004 dismissed the revision petition.

i. Respondent no. 4 is grand son of Saniya Devi daughter of Hari Mohan Mahatha.

j. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent no. 3 has no jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction on a petition for eviction from the land in question. He submits that the possession of the father of the petitioner was beyond the statutory period of 12 years form the date of enactment of Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provision) Act, 1949. Accordingly, he submits that the proceeding before the respondent no. 3 is itself is bad in law.

k. The counsel submits that although a statement has been made in the writ petition that even respondent no. 2 had no jurisdiction to pass any order but during the course of argument the petitioner submits that he is not pressing any point in connection with the jurisdiction of the respondent no. 2.

7. In response to the aforesaid submissions , counsel for the State subm