The main legal point established in the judgment is that disputes regarding possession and title of non-transferable agricultural land should be addressed in a competent civil court, and claims of forgery should be adjudicated in a civil jurisdiction.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.11.2021 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka-respondent no. 2 in R.M.A. Case No. 4/2020-21, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 6.2.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda-respondent no. 3 in Revenue Miscellaneous Appeal No. 25/2018-19 has been dismissed. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 6.2.2020 passed by respondent no. 3 in Revenue Miscellaneous Appeal No. 25/2018-19, whereby the said respondent while passing the order of eviction of the Respondent Nos. 7 to 16 has directed restoration of the land in question in favour of the respondent nos. 5 and 6.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land appertaining to Jamabandi No. 9, Dag No. 22, Mouja - Sarthu No. 479 in Mahagama police station, District Godda (hereinafter referred as the said land) was recorded jointly in the names of Upendra Nath Ghosh, Mosomat Jogmaya Dasi and Mosomat Rampati Dasi. The said land is non-transferable, as the same is agricultural land under the record of rights, which is governed by the provisions of sections 20, 42 and 59 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provision) Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act, 1949’).

3. It is further submitted that the petitioner is grandson of one of the recorded tenants- Upendra Nath Ghosh and respondent nos. 5 and 6 are the heirs of one of the recorded tenants-Jogmaya Dasi. The partition of the said land has not yet taken place among heirs of the recorded tenants. The respondent nos. 5 and 6 transferred the said land in favour of the respondent nos. 7 to 16 contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1949. It is also submitted that the respondent nos. 5 and 6 in connivance with the staff of record room, Godda managed to obtain a forged and fabricated ‘Parcha’ of last settlement with respect to Jamabandi No. 9, in which name of Upendra Nath Ghosh was omitted. Having come to know about the said fact, the petitioner filed Revenue Misc. Case No. 03/2017 before the Circle Officer, Mahagama, which was decided vide order dated 08.05.2017, holding that Upendra Nath Ghosh is one of the recorded raiyats and also directing the office to send the matter to the respondent no. 4 for eviction of the respondent No. 7 to 16. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the respondent no. 4 and accordingly R.E.R. Case No. 16/2017-18 was initiated. The respondent no. 4, however, dropped the said proceeding holding that there being a dispute with regard to valid succession and title, it was beyond his jurisdiction to decide the same. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a petition before the respondent no. 3 seeking eviction of the Respondent Nos. 7 to 16 and restoration of the said land in his favour. The respondent no. 3 though passed the order dated 06.02.2020 for eviction of the respondent Nos. 7 to 16, however, despite specific report of the Circle Officer, Mahagama, the said respondent directed the respondent nos. 7 to 16 to hand over possession of the said land in favour of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 only on the ground that they had got the land mutated in their favour. Aggrieved therewith, the petitioner moved the Court of Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka by filing an appeal being R.M.A No. 04 of 2020-21, however, the same was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 12.11.2021.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent no. 2 failed to appreciate that the petitioner had preferred R.M.A. No. 04 of 2020-21 only to the extent that the respondent no. 3 ought to have ordered for restoration of the said land in his favour but the respondent no. 2 has erroneously held that the land cannot be restored in favour of the petitioner stating that on perusal of the documents available on record, it transpired that there was a partition among ancestors of the parties according to which t