The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of adverse possession and the applicability of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 to the claim of adverse possession and the property in question.

1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Sinha, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents.

3. Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, A.C. to S.C. (L&C) appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

“That, the instant writ application is filed for issuance of writ of certiorari, and appropriate direction and quashing the order dated 03/10/2006 passed in R.M.R. No.434 of 1985 – 1986 whereby the learned Commissioner has set aside the concurrent finding of facts of the Additional Deputy Commissioner and the Sub – Divisional Officer, Dumka, and allowed the petition of the private respondents seeking eviction of the petitioner from Plot No. 377 and 378 of Village – Pindra, Police Station – Saraiyahat, District – Dumka. Further, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to restrain the respondent authority from evicting the petitioner from the plots on question, on which situates residential building of the petitioner, during pendency of the writ.”

5. Counsel for the petitioners submits as under:-

(a) That as back as on 26.11.1978 during settlement proceeding at Khanapuri stage ancestors of the private respondents herein had claimed that the property in question is their raiyati land, but in the said proceeding the petitioner’s ancestors claimed possession on the basis of Kurfa-Settlement from the recorded tenant dated 5th Aghan, 1345 – F.S. (Fasli).

(b) The Assistant Settlement Officer vide order dated 26.02.1979 declared the possession of the petitioners. Thereafter, the private respondents on 31.03.1979 filed an application under Section 42 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provision) Act, 1949 before the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka which was numbered as R.E. Case No. 345 of 1978-79 and the petitioners were sought to be evicted from the property occupied by the petitioners being plot nos. 377 and 378 of Jamabandi No. 33 of Mauza Pindra, P.S. Saraiyahat.

(c) Pursuant to such application, notices were issued and order was passed for conducting on the spot enquiry and a detailed report of the Circle Officer, Saraiyahat dated 26.08.1980 was prepared and he found that the petitioners were in possession of the property. By referring to the report of the Circle Officer, as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition, counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that one of the persons namely Bhola Nath Dutta had deposed before the Circle Officer that the petitioners are in possession of the property by virtue of Kurfanama, and he was one of the witnesses to the kurfanama amongst others, and the rest of the witnesses of the kurfanama had already expired. He during his statement before the Circle Officer had also made statement that the petitioners are in possession of the property since 1938. The counsel submits that the other witnesses in the report of the Circle Officer had stated that the petitioners are in possession of the property for about 40 to 50 years. He submits that thereafter another report dated 16.03.1981 was submitted by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, which was on similar lines.

(d) Counsel for the petitioners further submits that although the Kurfanama is an unregistered document, but as the possession of the petitioners on the property was prior to more than 12 years from 01.11.1949, when counted from the date of Kurfanama which is dated 5th Aghan, 1345 – F.S. (Fasli), therefore, the petitioners had perfected their title by way of adverse possession, and therefore no order could have been passed against the petitioners for evicting the petitioners from the property involved in this case in exercise of powers under Section 42 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provision) Act, 1949 which itself came into force with effect from 1.11.1949.

(e) He submits that the said petiti