The central legal point established in the judgment is that to claim adverse possession under the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949, there must be conclusive evidence of possession for 12 years prior to the Act's enactment, and doubts regarding the legality and validity of supporting documents weaken the claim.

1. Heard Mr. Lalit Kumar Lal, counsel appearing for the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, counsel appearing for the private respondents.

3. Heard Mr. Sahil, counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

4. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief’s:

“For quashing the order dated 24.7.06 passed in Revenue Misc. Appeal No. 84/1989-90 by the Commissioner, (Respondent no. 2) and as contained in Annexure-whereby the order of the charge Officer, Respondent No. 3 dated 30.05.89 (Annexure-4) has been set aside although the facts, evidence and the law did not warrant any interference with the said order dtd. 30.5.89 of the Charge Officer which found and upheld the petitioner’s possession over the plots in question as valid, because, 12 years continuous possession prior to 1.11.49 and accordingly to direct that the petitioner’s name be recorded in respect of the land/plots in question and for such other relief or relief’s to which the petitioner is legally entitled to.”

2. Counsel for the petitioners submits as follows:

(a) The property in dispute i.e. plot no. 295, area 1 bigha kathas 17 dhurs of mouza Khasia P.S. Hasdiha, Distt. Dumka stood recorded in the name of Anandi Kapri and Kisto Kapri.

(b) Widow of Anandi Kapri namely, Pato Kaprian executed two Kurfanamas one in the year 1934 and another in the year 1935 in favour of father of the original writ Petitioner (since deceased and substituted) and since thereafter, the petitioners came into possession of the property and continued possession to the full knowledge of the private respondents on payment of rent for which Kurfanama receipts were granted by the widow of Anandi Kapri and from 1960-61 the rent was paid to State of Bihar.

(c) The Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 came into force with effect from 01.11.1949 and it is specific case of the petitioners that prior to 01.11.1949, the father of the original petitioner had perfected his title by way of adverse possession by remaining in possession for 12 years over the land as per the provisions of Section 27 of Regulation III of 1872. He submits that this section was repealed and replaced by Section 20 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 with effect from 1.11.1949. He submits that as the petitioners had perfected their title by way of adverse possession prior to 1.11.1949, the petitioners could not be evicted under the provisions of Section 20 read with Section 42 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949.

(d) Counsel for the petitioners submits that in the survey settlement and at the initial stage the name of the original petitioner was recorded with remarks illegal possession with respect to the said property and without any notice and hearing, the Assistant Settlement Officer, by his order dated 10.01.1981 recommended to the Settlement Officer, Dumka for eviction of the original petitioner from the aforesaid property which was accepted by the Settlement Officer, Dumka and the order of eviction was passed on 08.04.1981. It was recorded in the order dated 10.01.1981 that the father of the original petitioner has acquired this property by virtue of Kurfanama.

(e) However, when the order of eviction was passed and the petitioner filed Revenue Miscellaneous Revision No. 113 of 1981-82 before the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Bhagalpur, the said authority was pleased to set-aside the order of eviction on 05.05.1984 and remanded the matter back to the Settlement Court for disposal in accordance with law.

(f) Thereafter, the matter was registered as T.L. Case No. 27 of 1987 before the court of Charge Officer No. 1 at Dumka and it was contended before the Charge Officer that the Kurfanama of the year, 1934 and 1935 were not taken into consideration by the Assistant Settlement Officer on the ground that the said document had certain interpolations but the said allegation was incorrect.

(g) Counsel for the petitioners further submits th