Continuous possession under invalid Kurfanama for less than twelve years warrants eviction under Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act.

The Petitioner challenged an order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, which set aside a previous appellate order and restored an eviction order against the Petitioner

Respondent No. 5, claiming to be the adopted son of the original owner, Tetru Jha, filed for eviction under Sections 20 and 42 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949, alleging that the Petitioner’s father encroached on Plot Nos. 640 and 641

The Petitioner contended that his father acquired possession in 1941 via a Kurfanama (unregistered settlement deed) and remained in continuous possession

While the Deputy Commissioner initially ruled in favor of the Petitioner citing continuous possession, the Divisional Commissioner reversed this, finding the possession in contravention of the Act

1. Whether the Petitioner had completed twelve years of continuous possession prior to the enforcement of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949, to protect him from eviction

2. Whether the Kurfanama of 1941 constituted a valid legal basis for possession under the Tasdik Niyamawali and Section 20 of the Act

The court applied Sections 20 and 42 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949, which prohibit the transfer of Raiyati land in any form unless specifically permitted, and authorize the Deputy Commissioner to evict those in contravention

It relied on the Tasdik Niyamawali, which stipulates that a Sada (plain/unregistered) Kurfanama is only valid if recognized or exhibited by a court of law

Furthermore, it applied the precedent from Ram Kisto Mandal v. Dhankisto Mandal (AIR 1969 SC 204), establishing that even collusive compromises aimed at regularizing illegal transfers of Raiyati land are void

The court observed that the Act came into effect on 01.11.1949; since the Petitioner claimed possession starting from 1941, he had only completed eight years of possession by the time the Act was enacted, failing the requisite 12-year threshold for prescriptive rights

Upon reviewing the Tasdik Niyamawali, the court found that the Petitioner’s Kurfanama was neither registered, nor had it been previously recognized or exhibited by a court of law, rendering it "collusive" and "doubtful"

The court rejected the Petitioner's reliance on Bhauri Lal v. S.D.O. and Asharfi Mahaton v. State of Bihar, noting that in those cases, either the 12-year possession was proven or the specific regulations of the Niyamawali were not considered

The court emphasized that the Act's primary intent is to prevent the alienation of Raiyati land through disguised or collusive transfers

The High Court upheld the Divisional Commissioner’s order of eviction, finding no illegality in the decision; the writ petition was dismissed