Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J
1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the revisional Court of Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in R.M.R .No.7/1984-85.
2. The petitioner claims the land measuring 2.97 acre of Plot No.236, Jamabandi No.7 of Mouza Shekhpura, P.S. Jamtara on the basis of Kurfanama
settlement by recorded tenant Durga Charan Mandal and Kanhai Mandal in May, 1937 in favour of Bhubneshwar @ Bhuban Bhaiya, who happens to
be the father of the petitioner. Other co-sharer of recorded Raiyat Laru Mandal also transferred 25 decimals of land out of this plot in favour of the
father of the Petitioner.
3. After obtaining the Kurfa Patta, the father of the petitioner had built brick houses on the said land and have living there since 1937.
4. The predecessor in interest of the private respondents filed case under Section 42 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act for ejectment of the
Petitioner.
5. Learned Court of Sub Divisional Officer in R.E. Case No.35/1972-73 dismissed the case for ejectment on the ground that opposite party had
constructed house over the said land and had also planted trees over it. In this view of matter, it was held that the Kurfanama settlement cannot be
suspected and disregarded.
6. The appeal was also dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner by recording a finding that it was the present Petitioner, who were in settled
possession over the said land. The said house was constructed in the year
7. The orders rejecting petition for ejectment have been set aside by the impugned order on the ground that un-registered Kurfanama was not
acceptable for transfer of immovable property. Furthermore, after the said settlement it never saw the light of day for getting the land mutated in the
name of settlee.
8. Learned counsel on behalf of petitioner submits that under the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, there is no provision for mutation in favour of the
settled Raiyat and they are continuing in physical possession of the land in question since 1937. The findings of fact of two Courts below have been
reversed by the revisional order.
9. Learned counsel on behalf of private respondents submits that the basis of claim of the petitioner is un-registered Kurfanama which has never been
brought on record and rent receipts are being issued in the name of private respondents. There is no material to show that any enquiry was held by the
Sub Divisional Officer for returning finding of possession in favour of the petitioner.
10. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides, it is desirable to extract Section 42 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy
Act, (for short ‘SPT Act’) under which ejectment has been ordered.
“Section 42- Ejectment of a person in unauthorized position of agricultural land â€" The Deputy Commissioner may at any time either of his own
motion or on an application made to him, pass an order for ejectment of any person who has encroached upon, reclaimed, acquired, or come into
possession of agricultural land in contravention of the provisions of this Act, or any law or anything having the force of law in the Santhal Parganas.â€
A plain reading of the above provision, leaves doubt that illegal possession is the subject matter of ejectment proceeding. Mere plea of possession
cannot be a ground of continuing with it, unless the said possession has semblance of legal sanctity. A revenue Court cannot decide a possessory title
on adverse possession or proprietary title, but there should be some material to show that possession was legal and Procedee was not a rank
trespasser. Revenue records are not documents of title, but they are some evidence of possession, which is looked into along with other evidence on
record. Kurfa Patta is a type of agricultural lease, and like any lease of any immovable property, it need to be registered as per the provisions of the
Registration Act. In agricultural lease, if settlement of land is followed by cogent evidence, then for limited purpose it has been accepted as an
evidence of legal possession. Person in possession cannot be evicted, unless in a suit for title by a civil Court.
11. In the present case, private Respondents are heirs and successor of recorded tenant. Claim of the petitioner rests on Kurfa Patta executed in the
year 1937. This has however not corroborated by other documentary evidence, that petitioner came in possession of the said land on the basis of the
said settlement, or it was a sham piece of document. Whenever a question on veracity of a document is raised, it is necessary to see if on the basis of
the said document, land was duly mutated, revenue paid and right of possession or ownership was exercised on its basis. Absence of collateral
evidence that the said document was ever acted upon, will render it a document of doubtful veracity. If unregistered documents, without any other
supporting document of possession are accepted as documents of transfer of title, then such documents can be used to justify illegal possession. In the
present case, there is no evidence to the effect that the said settlement, was followed by mutation in favour of the petitioner, or, rent was fixed and the
name of the petitioner was entered in the Serishta of the State. Under the circumstance, mere bald assertion regarding possession, unaccompanied by
any other documentary evidence in support of it, will not make the possession legal and immune to ejectment proceeding.
Under the circumstance, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court, whereby Kurfa Patta has not
been accepted as a valid document of possession.
Writ petition accordingly, stands dismissed. Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.
