The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Beni Madhav Jha challenging an eviction order in a long-running land dispute from Godda district. The Court held that the petitioner failed to establish the legal requirements for protection of his possession under the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949, and found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner’s order directing eviction.
Background of the Case
The dispute traces back to proceedings initiated under Sections 20 and 42 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949. Respondent No. 5 sought eviction of several persons, including the petitioner's father, alleging encroachment over land situated in Mauza Dumaria.
Beni Madhav Jha claimed that his father had been in possession of the land since 1941 on the strength of a document known as a Kurfanama. According to him, the family remained in continuous cultivation of the property and the possession later devolved upon him.
The petitioner also relied on rent receipts and argued that the revenue authorities had failed to properly consider these documents before directing eviction. While the Deputy Commissioner had earlier set aside the eviction order in 1986, the Divisional Commissioner restored the eviction order in 2011. That order was challenged before the High Court.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Court's Observations
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi examined whether the petitioner had proved continuous possession for the period required under the 1949 Act.
The Court observed that although the petitioner relied upon a Kurfanama said to have been executed in 1941, the Act came into force on 1 November 1949. Therefore, the petitioner could not establish the required twelve years of possession after the Act became operative.
The Court further examined the legal status of the Kurfanama under the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Manual. It explained that such a document could be accepted only if it satisfied specified conditions, including registration or judicial recognition. The Court found that none of those conditions had been fulfilled in the present case.
"The Kurfanama itself appears to be a collusive one,"
the Court observed while analysing the documentary evidence.
The High Court also noted that even if the petitioner's argument regarding registration of the document was accepted, the remaining legal requirements were still not met. It recorded that the petitioner had failed to prove twelve years' possession, which was essential for resisting eviction under the statutory scheme.
The Court also referred to earlier litigation concerning the adoption claim of Respondent No. 5 and noted that the issue had already travelled through civil proceedings. It further discussed Supreme Court rulings interpreting the Santhal Pargana Tenancy law, observing that the legislation was enacted to prevent disguised or collusive transfers of raiyati land and to preserve the customary landholding system in the region.
Court's Decision
After examining the records and the applicable law, the High Court concluded that the Commissioner had correctly restored the eviction order. It found no illegality in the impugned decision and held that the petitioner had failed to establish continuous possession in accordance with the statutory requirements.
Dismissing W.P.(C) No. 3922 of 2012, the Court held that there was no ground to interfere with the Commissioner's order. The connected interlocutory application, if any, was also disposed of.
Case Details:
Case Title: Beni Madhav Jha v. State of Jharkhand and Others
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 3922 of 2012
Judge: Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Decision Date: 23 June 2026
