JUDGMENT Ali Ahmad, J. The petitioners, four in number, have filed this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and have prayed that annexures 4, 5, 7 and 8 be quashed. Annexure 4 is an order dated 24th, September 1969 by which the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar ordered the petitioners to be evicted from six plots, namely, plot 552, 554, 658, 756 and 760 of Jamabandi No. 84 appertaining to village Andhari Gadar. Annexure 5 is an order dated 31st. March. 1970 passed in appeal by which the order of the Sub-Divisional officer (Annexure 4) has been affirmed. Annexure 7 is an order dated 2nd. June 1975 passed by the Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division upholding the orders as contained in annexures 4 and Annexures 8 is also an order dated 2nd. June 1975 passed by the Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division by which he directed the petitioners to be evicted from plot Nos. 761, 763, 764, 766 and 767 also of Jamabandi No. 34 in village Andhri Gadar under Section 20 (5) of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary provisions) Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) 2. The case of the petitioners shortly stated is that they took kut settlement from the sons of the recorded tenant sometime in the year 1934. They claim that thereafter they came in possession of the lands settled with them-Again according to the petitioners there was settlement of the entire Jamabandi No. 34 of village Andhari Gadar in their favour on 21st. Baishakh 1348 (some time in the year 1941). They claim that ever since then they have been in continuous possession of the lands covered by the Kurfa settlement. 3. Title suit no. 44 of 1959 was filed by some of the heirs of the recorded tenant alleging that the Kurfa settlement made in favour of the petitioners was invalid, and as such, they prayed for recovery of possession with respect to the lands appertaining to Jamabandi No. 34. The suit however was compromised on 11th. August, 1959. According to the compromise, the suit was dismissed, some time thereafter, an application by Ganesh Modi (Respondent No. 12) was filed before the Sub-Divisional officer praying that the petitioners be evicted from the lands of Jamabandi no. 34. This application was rejected by the Sub Divisional officer by his order dated 12th. July 1961. August, 1959. According to the compromise, the suit was dismissed, some time thereafter, an application by Ganesh Modi (Respondent No. 12) was filed before the Sub-Divisional officer praying that the petitioners be evicted from the lands of Jamabandi no. 34. This application was rejected by the Sub Divisional officer by his order dated 12th. July 1961. A copy of the said order has been marked as Annexure 2 Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal by his order dated 19th. March 1962 (Annexure-3) Nothing seems to have happened thereafter for some time till 1969 when respondent No. 5 filed another petition for eviction. The Sub-Divisional Officer, after hearing the parties, directed by his order dated 24th. September 1969 (Annexure 4) that the petitioners be evicted from plot nos. 552, 553, 554, 558, 756 and 760. With regard to plot Nos. 761, 768, 764, 766 and 767 be however rejected the prayer. On appeal, the Deputy commissioner affirmed the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer vide his order contained in annexure-5. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application in revision before the Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division. The Commissioner, on a perusal of the documents, issued notice to the petitioners to show cause as to why order for eviction should also not be passed with respect to plot Nos. 761, 768, 764, 766 and 767 of Jamabandi No. 34. The petitioners appeared and showed cause saying, Interalia, that they have been in continuous possession since 1934 on account of kut settlement and also on account of Kurfa settlement made in their favour on 21st. Baisakh 1348. Learned Commissioner by his order dated 2nd June 1975 (Annexure-7) dismissed the revisional application upholding the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Deputy Commissioner as contained in Annexure 4 and 5, respectively. He also by an order passed on the same day i.e. on 2nd. June, 1975, contained in Annexure-g, held that the petitioners have come in possession of the lands in the year 1941 on the basis of Kurfa settlement and that they had not perfected their title on 1st. November 1949 when the Act, came in force. He, therefore exercising his power under Section 20 (5) of the Act, directed the petitioners to be evicted from these plots also. In these circumstances the petitioners, have come to this court. 4. November 1949 when the Act, came in force. He, therefore exercising his power under Section 20 (5) of the Act, directed the petitioners to be evicted from these plots also. In these circumstances the petitioners, have come to this court. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4. Their case seems to be that the petitioners came in possession of the lands in question on 21st. Baisakh 1348 on the strength of Kurfa settlement and before they could perfect their title by adverse possession the Act, came into force, and as such orders, could be passed under Section 20 (5) of the Act, for their eviction. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad No. 2 has urged that on the findings recorded by the authorities, the petitioners had been in possession of the lands in question since 1941 and that when the proceedings was started in the year 1969 they had perfected their title by adverse possession and as such no orders for their eviction could be passed under Section 20 (5) of the Act. In this connection reliance has been placed on the case of Bhauri Lal Jain and another. Vrs. Sub-Divisional Officer Jamtara and others and on the unreported decision in Goda Mahato and others Vrs. State of Bihar and others, decided on 2nd January, 1977. Mr. Prasad submitted that on the findings the petitioners came in possession of the disputed lands at least on 1st Baisakh 1348 1941) and at a time when Regulation 3 of 1872, was in force. According to the provisions as contained in Regulation 3 of 1872, title by adverse possession could be acquired. Therefore he submitted that the process of acquisition of title by adverse possession has started in the year 1941 itself and that the process so started continued even after the enforcement of the Act. According to him, therefore the orders as contained in Annexures 4, 5, 7 and 8 for eviction of the petitioners from the lands in question were bad. 6. In the aforesaid case Bhauri Lal Jain and another (supra) it has been held that the title by adverse possession could be acquired under an invalid transfer in contravention of Section 27 (1) of Regulation 3 of 1872 and those who had acquired good title by adverse possession under that Regulation could not be evicted. 6. In the aforesaid case Bhauri Lal Jain and another (supra) it has been held that the title by adverse possession could be acquired under an invalid transfer in contravention of Section 27 (1) of Regulation 3 of 1872 and those who had acquired good title by adverse possession under that Regulation could not be evicted. It is true that on 1st. November 1949 the petitioners had not perfected their title by adverse possession but that is of no consequence so far as this case is concerned. The petitioners had come in possession of the lands in question in the year 1941 on the basis of a Kurfa settlement, which was an invalid transfer being in contravention of Section 27 (1) of Regulation 3 of 1872. It is also true that Section 69 (a) bars acquisition of title by adverse possession on any land held or acquired in contravention of provision of Section 20. But the petitioners did not come in possession of the disputed lands or claim to have acquired title in contravention of section 20. They claim to have come in possession on the basis of acquisition of title by a Kurfa settlement. This settlement, though illegal, was certainly not in contravention of the provision of Section 20. Therefore, in my opinion, section 69 has no application and therefore the process of acquisition of title by adverse possession, which started in the year 1941, continued till after the enforcement of the Act. 7. Similar view seems to have been taken in the Bench decision of this court in C.W.J.C. No. 957 of 1969 where the petitioners claimed to have come in possession on the basis of settlement in March and April 1949. A proceeding for their eviction was initiated after the expiry of 12 years from the date of their settlement and they were directed to be evicted on the ground that they have not acquired title by adverse possession on 1st. November, 1949. The Bench bearing the application set aside the order of the eviction passed against them and remanded the case to the authorities to find out as to whether the petitioners of that case were in possession adversely to the real owners for 12 years from the date of their alleged settlement. November, 1949. The Bench bearing the application set aside the order of the eviction passed against them and remanded the case to the authorities to find out as to whether the petitioners of that case were in possession adversely to the real owners for 12 years from the date of their alleged settlement. This order has been passed on the basis that the process of perfecting title by adverse possession can be carried forward under the new Act, also after it came into force on 1st. November 1949. For these reason in my opinion, the application has succeeded, and it is accordingly, allowed. Annexure 4, 5, 7 and 8 are, therefore, quashed. But in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Applications allowed.