Judgment B.P. JHA, J. In an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, these petitioners pray for quashing annxures 3 and 5. Annexure-3 is an order passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Pakur, and annexure-5 contains an order of the Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division. 2. The short point for consideration is, whether an application filed under the Provision of section 20 (5) of the Santhal Paraganas Tenancy Act, 1949, as amended by the Bihar Regulation 1 of 1969, is maintainable or not ? It is relevant to quote the amended provision of section 20(5) of the Santhal Paraganas Tenancy Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which runs as follows: “(5) If at any time it comes to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner that a transfer of land belonging to a raiyat who is a member of the Scheduled Tribes as specified in Part III of the Schedule to the Constitution (Schedule Tribes) Order, 1950, has taken place in contravention of sub section (1) or (2) by any fraudulent method, he may, after giving reasonable opportunity to the transforce, who is proposed to be evicted to show cause and after making necessary enquiry in the matter, evict the transferee from such land without payment of compensation and restore it to the transferor or his heir, or in case the transferor or his heir is not available or is not wiling to agree to such restoration, resettle it with another raiyat belonging to the scheduled Tribes according to the village custom for the disposal of an abandoned holding: 3. Mandal Tudu (respondent no.4) filed an application under the amended section 20 (5) of the Act, for evicting these petitioners as contained in annexure-2. On the basis of this petition the Sub-divisional Officer, Pakur, evicted these petitioners. In appeal, the Deputy Commissioner vide annexure-4 set aside the order of the Sub-divisional Officer. The Commissioner upheld the order of the Sub-divisional Officer. A petition under section 20 (5) of the Act, envisages to evict a transferee. The Deputy Commissioner has been authorised under that section to evict any transferee where the transfer has taken place in contravention of sub-Section (4) or sub-Section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, or by any fraudulent method. According to the case of the respondents as contained in annexure-2. The Deputy Commissioner has been authorised under that section to evict any transferee where the transfer has taken place in contravention of sub-Section (4) or sub-Section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, or by any fraudulent method. According to the case of the respondents as contained in annexure-2. It is clear that these petitioners came in possession of certain plots in Jamabandi no.98 in village Baset kundi, Police Station Pakuria, four or five years before the date of filing of this application. It is relevant to quote paragraph no.4 of annexure 2 which runs as follows: “That the opposite party members are the heirs of the other recorded tenant of Jambandi no.98 of mauza Basetkundi. These persons have formed an illegal group and they have foricibly dispossessed the petitioner from the schedule land since 4 years and they are not allowing the petitioner to cultivate these lands.” 4. It is clear from annexure-2 that these petitioners forcibly occupied the lands in question and dispossessed respondent no.4 since five years back. It is, therefore, clear that it is not a case of transfer between Mandal Tudu and these petitioners. It is nowhere stated in the petition as contained in annexure-2 that Mandal Tudu transferred the lands in question to these petitioners. If there was no transfer, the contravention of sub-section (1) or Sub Section (2) of S.20 of the Act, does not arise. It is also not the case of respondent no.4 that the transfer was made by any fraudulent means. Hence, I held that the case so made out in annexue-2 is not covered by the amended section 20(5) of the Act. If it is so, the Sub-divisional Officer was not entitled to pass any order under section 20(5) of the Act, in favour of respondent no.4. The parties shall be at liberty to take any other legal steps which may be available under the provisions of any other law. In view of this infirmity, I quash annexures-3, 4, 5. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed and, annexures-3, 4 and 5 are hereby quashed. The parties shall bear their own costs. 6. The parties shall be at liberty to take any other legal steps which may be available under the provisions of any other law. In view of this infirmity, I quash annexures-3, 4, 5. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed and, annexures-3, 4 and 5 are hereby quashed. The parties shall bear their own costs. 6. Dispossession-which is the basis of an application under the provisions of sub-section(5) of section 20 of the Act, can by no stretch of Imagination be said to be a transfer within the meaning of this term as used in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 20 of the Act. According to Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, “transfer of property “means” an Act, by which a living person conveys property, in present or in future to one or more other living persons or to himself, and one or more other living persons and to transfer property’ is to perform such act. This being the position, the application under section 20 (5) of the Act, is misconceived. As such, I agree with the order proposed by my learned Brother. Application allowed.