JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Jay Prakash Jha, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Shalini Shahdeo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Ayush Aditya, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 and 6.

2. This petition has been filed for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for direction upon the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the land bounded with house situated on current settlement plot nos. 86, 92, 363, 424 (Khanapuri Khata No. 49/8) of mouza Dudhani under Dumka District. Prayer has also been made to set aside the judgment and order of the learned Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in R.M. R. No. 316/87-88 by which he has affirmed the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer and Settlement Officer, Santhal Pargana Dumka in R.E.A. No. 19/421 of 86-87 and R.E.A. No. 130/1987 whereby the order of eviction has been passed against the petitioner and her family members from the house and land, situated on the aforesaid plots of land.

3. Mr. Jai Prakash Jha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner got sub-lease from the original tenant (KURFA) as far back as in the year 1936 and the thereafter occupied the land all through paid rent to the original tenant and the landed property got mutated in the name of the petitioner as far back as in the year 1974-75 through Mutation Case No.42/74-75, 30A/76-77 and the rent was being paid to the State since thereafter. He further submits that a settlement proceeding was going on in terms of Notification Under Section 9 of the Santhal Pargana Settlement Regulation (3) 1872 in the whole of the Dumka District and in course of the khanapuri proceeding of the settlement proceeding under the Dudhani Mauza, the authorities under the settlement found that the petitioner and her family members have possession of the landed property in measuring 1 katha and 10 dhurs which was said to be khanapuri Khata no.49/8 Khanapuri, Khesra No. 84/52 86/52, 92/58, 366/279 and 367/279 as transferred case No. 19/421 as such a proceeding Under Section 20 (5) and 42 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act 1949 was started against the petitioner, stating that the petitioner has illegal possession over the landed property in question. He submits that thereafter a notice was served upon the petitioner and the petitioner appeared before the Learned Assistant Settlement Officer in the khanapuri proceeding and submitted her show cause stating inter-alia that the father and husband of the petitioner had good relationship with one Kishun Mahato, the father and grand-father of the Respondent No.5 to 9 and out of love and affection the said Kishun Mahato and his sons being the witness, had settled 10 Katha 6 chhatak and 6 dhurs of land of Mauza Dudhani, being Plot No.279, 6 katha of Plot No.52 and 9 katha of Plot No. was made 58 and 9 katha of Plot No. 409, such settlement was made through KURFA. He submits that this a prevalent practice in the Santhal Pargana and on account of Kurfa settlement made as far back as 24.04.1936 and 05.05.1936, the father and husband of the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner came in possession of the landed property in question and thereafter the petitioner used to pay the rent to the heirs of the recorded tenant as being sub-lessee. He then submits that the father and the husband of the petitioner thereafter constructed their house and bounded the entire landed property on 1 Bigha and 10 Katha which are contiguous to each other and used it for domestic purposes and thereafter 2 Mutation Cases being 42/74-75 and 30/A/76-77 were separately started and thereafter they were also paying rent to the State. According to him, the original petitioner was a landlness lady and she had no other house. By drawing the attention to the impugned orders the learned senior counsel submits that the authorities have found that the house has been erected therein and the said KURFA through which the fathe