JUDGMENT :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

“For quashing the order dated 03.10.2006 passed by the Commissioner, S.P. Division, Dumka (Respondent No. 2) in R.M.A. No. 200/86-87 whereby the learned Court confirmed the order of Eviction of the Petitioner dated 18.6.86 from the land in question passed by the Charge Officer, Dumka (Respondent No. 3) in RMA No. 156/1985 and the order dated 21/1/85 passed by the Asstt. Settlement Officer, Tasdik Camp-Amdiha (Respondent No. 4) in R.E. Case No. 2/1984.”

Arguments on behalf of the Petitioners

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are claiming the property on the basis of Hukumnama issued in favour of the original petitioner (Babu Ram Rai) by the ex-landlord. The Hukumnama is dated 19.12.1948. He has further submitted that the property involved in this case stood recorded in the name of one Kasturi Raiyain wife of Lalit Rai who was none else than the own cousin aunt of the original petitioner namely Babu Ram Rai. She had no son and had only one daughter who got married and the original petitioner was kept by the recorded tenant as her son while he was a boy of only 10 years and was brought up by her. The original petitioner lived with his aunt since 1934-1935 and used to take care of her and also performed her last rites who died sometimes in the year 1943-1944. He further submits that the landlord (Ex-intermediary) of Handwa Estate finding the original petitioner in long continuous possession of the land in question, not only during the life time of the recorded tenant but also after her death, granted Hukumnama Patta No. 23 dated 19.12.1948 and since then the original petitioner has remained in possession of the property.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that even in the returns filed by the Ex-zamindar, the name of the original petitioner has been mentioned in connection with the property involved in the present case. The learned counsel submits that the very fact that in the return, the name of the original petitioner was mentioned, itself indicates that Hukumnama was issued in favour of the original petitioner and the original petitioner was in continuous possession of the property. He submits that the original petitioner continued to pay rent even after vesting of Zamindari. The learned counsel has submitted that true copy of the return has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition.

5. However, a proceeding under Section 20 and 42 of Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act was initiated against the original petitioner for eviction which was numbered as R.E. Case No. 2 of 1984 by the court of Asst. Settlement Officer, at Camp Amdiha as back as on 20.12.1984. It is submitted that from the order dated 20.12.1984 it appears that one Gangadhar Rai, original private respondent herein, appeared before the Settlement officer and sought adjournment, but the settlement officer proceeded to decide the case and ultimately passed impugned order dated 22.01.1985 (Annexure-3) directing eviction of the original petitioner and rejecting the Hukumnama Patta dated 19.12.1948. Learned senior counsel submits that Gangadhar Rai never claimed the land in question and is not the legal heir of the recorded tenant but still an order of eviction was passed.

6. Thereafter an appeal was filed by the original petitioner before the Charge Officer, Dumka, which was numbered as R.M.A. Case No. 156 of 1985. The Charge Officer confirmed the order passed by the Settlement Officer vide order dated 18.06.1986 (Annexure-2) by holding that the Hukumnama dated 19.12.1948 cannot be accepted as genuine as there was overwriting in the date and the plea of adverse possession was also rejected by the appellate authority by holding that the original petitioner had not completed 12 years of possession over the land in question prior to commencement of Santhal Parganas Tenan