Jharkhand HC Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Eviction Order Under Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act; Holds 1941 Kurfanama Collusive and 12-Year Possession Not Proved

The Jharkhand High Court dismissed a writ petition against an eviction order, finding the petitioner's 1941 Kurfanama collusive and possession of disputed land for 12 years not established under the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949.

The High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi, on 23 June 2026 dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an eviction order in a long-running land dispute over plot Nos. 640 and 641, measuring one Bigha 10 Katha, in Mauza Dumaria, District Godda. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, sitting singly, found that the petitioner's central document — a Kurfanama of 1941 — did not satisfy the conditions for validity under the Tasdik Niyamawali of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act (Supplementary Provision), 1949, and that 12 years of possession from the Act's commencement on 1 November 1949 had not been proved. The judgment also addressed the customary law of adoption in Santhal Pargana and the long-standing prohibition on collusive transfers of Raiyati land.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The original proceedings began with an application filed by Respondent No. 5, Narendra Jha, before the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Godda, under sections 20 and 42 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act (Supplementary Provision), 1949. The application alleged that the father of the petitioner, Upendra Jha, had encroached upon a portion of plot Nos. 640 and 641 in Mauza Dumaria. Narendra Jha claimed to be the adopted son of one Tetru Jha, who had been the sole owner of the land after the issuance death of his uncle Feku Jha. A registered deed of adoption dated 8 February 1965 was executed, by which Narendra Jha — then a six-year-old boy — was given in adoption by his natural father Chhabikant Jha to Tetru Jha.

The petitioner's father appeared before the SDO and denied the adoption, describing it as bogus. He claimed that Tetru Jha's forefather had executed a Kurfanama in 1941 in favour of Upendra Jha, on the basis of which the father came into possession of the land during Tetru Jha's lifetime and continued cultivating it regularly. After Upendra Jha's death, the petitioner, Beni Madhav Jha, claimed to have continued in possession.

The SDO, Godda, passed an eviction order dated 27 June 1979. The petitioner's father preferred a Revenue Miscellaneous Appeal, and the Deputy Commissioner, Godda, by order dated 19 May 1986, set aside the SDO's order, holding that the father was in continuous possession on the basis of the Kurfanama settlement made by Tetru Jha. Respondent No. 5 then filed a revision under section 58(B) of the Act, numbered R.M.A. No. 197/86-87. By the impugned order dated 21 October 2011, the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, set aside the Deputy Commissioner's order, restored the SDO's eviction order, and directed the petitioner's eviction. It is this order of 2011 that the petitioner challenged before the High Court.

Separately, the question of the adoption's validity had been contested in Title Suit No. 6 of 1969, which was dismissed on 2 September 1969. A Title Appeal (No. 4 of 1994) was also dismissed on 10 March 1999. A Second Appeal, No. 171 of 1999, was dismissed in default, and a restoration application (C.M.P. No. 646 of 2025) was pending at the time of this judgment.

The Legal Issue: Validity of the Kurfanama and the 12-Year Possession Requirement

The Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act (Supplementary Provision), 1949, came into effect on 1 November 1949. Section 20 of the Act prohibits transfers of Raiyati land except in prescribed forms, and section 42 authorises the Deputy Commissioner to evict persons who have acquired land in contravention of those provisions. The core dispute before the High Court was whether the petitioner had completed 12 years of possession from the Act's commencement date, which would have been required to sustain his claim based on the Kurfanama.

The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Jay Prakash Jha (Senior Advocate), argued that the 1941 Kurfanama conferred possession on the petitioner's father well before the Act came into force, and that the revenue courts had failed to consider the Kurfanama and rent receipts before passing the eviction order. He relied on Bhauri Lal v. S.D.O., Jamtara, reported in AIR 1973 (Pat.), and Asharfi Mahaton and Others v. The State of Bihar and Others, reported in 1978 PBCJ 572.

The State's counsel submitted that the Divisional Commissioner had correctly applied sections 20 and 42, and that where 12 years of possession from 1 November 1949 was not proved, eviction was legally warranted. Counsel for Respondent No. 5 added that the adoption was itself collusive, no prescribed procedure for adoption under the 1949 Act had been followed, and the title suit for a declaration of valid adoption had been dismissed and confirmed in appeal.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Dwivedi identified the central question as whether the petitioner had completed 12 years of possession from 1 November 1949 — that is, possession proved until at least 1961. The Kurfanama was dated 1941. The Act commenced on 1 November 1949. Even if possession under the Kurfanama was accepted from 1941, only eight years of possession had been completed by the time the Act came into force, with the 12-year period running from 1949 to 1961. The court found that the petitioner had not proved possession for that full period.

The court then examined the Kurfanama itself against the criteria prescribed under the Tasdik Niyamawali under the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act. The Niyamawali lays down three conditions for determining the validity of a Kurfanama: first, if it is registered, the date of registration governs; second, if it is a Sada (plain paper) Kurfanama that has been considered by a court of law, the date of that consideration governs; and third, if the Kurfanama has been exhibited as evidence before a court, the date of that exhibition governs. The Niyamawali also makes clear that a Kurfanama is not itself sufficient to establish title and can only be treated as evidence of possession, which must be independently and conclusively proved.

Justice Dwivedi found that none of these three conditions were fulfilled by the Kurfanama of the present case. The document was not registered. It had not been considered or exhibited by any court in a manner that would bring it within the second or third conditions. The court accordingly found the Kurfanama to be collusive.

The petitioner's counsel had argued that under the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Manual, a valid Kurfanama cannot be treated as invalid and cannot ground an eviction. The court accepted the force of this argument in principle but held that it could only operate once a Kurfanama was found to be valid. Given the findings of doubtfulness and collusion, the argument did not assist the petitioner. On the separate contention that a Kurfanama cannot be registered, the court held that even accepting this position, the Niyamawali prescribed how a Sada Kurfanama was to be considered, and those conditions were also not met.

The court referred to the prohibition on Raiyati land transfers, tracing it to Government orders since 1887 and to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ram Kisto Mandal and Another v. Dhankisto Mandal, reported in AIR 1969 SC 204, and Jyoti Thakur and Others v. Tarakant Jha and Others, reported in AIR 1963 SC 605. Those decisions had recognised that the prohibition on alienation of Raiyati holdings — which eventually found statutory form in Section 20(1) of the 1949 Act — was rooted in the preservation of Santhal village communities and their special rights over village lands. The court observed that even a collusive compromise in a title suit, aimed at regularising an illegal transfer through a court order, would be in contravention of section 20.

Justice Dwivedi also noted that section 69 of the Act restricts decisions based on adverse possession, further limiting the petitioner's ability to make good his claim on that basis.

On the two judgments relied on by the petitioner, the court distinguished both. In Bhauri Lal v. S.D.O., Jamtara, the Kurfanama settlement was also of 1941 and the Act came in 1949, but the court found that the condition of 12 years had been fulfilled on the facts of that case, which were different from those before it. As for Asharfi Mahaton and Others v. The State of Bihar and Others, the court found that the Niyamawali and the specific Kurfanama conditions had not been placed before that bench, and the Division Bench in that case had not considered the Niyamawali. The precedent therefore did not assist the petitioner.

The court also addressed the adoption issue in brief. Customary laws of adoption in Santhal Pargana have been recognised under the 1949 Act. However, the title suit seeking a declaration of valid adoption had been dismissed and the dismissal affirmed in the first appeal. The court noted this factual backdrop but did not rest its decision on the adoption question alone, focusing instead on the Kurfanama and the possession requirement.

Outcome

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi dismissed W.P.(C) No. 3922 of 2012 on 23 June 2026. The court found no illegality in the order dated 21 October 2011 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, which had set aside the Deputy Commissioner's order and restored the eviction directed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Godda. Any interlocutory applications in the writ petition were also disposed of.