Judgment 1. In this petition, these petitioners pray for quashing Annexures-1, 2, 3 and 5; but at the time of hearing, they press for quashing Annexure-5 only. 2. By Annexure-5, the Sub-divisional Officer directed these five petitioners to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5/- each per day till the continuance of the encroachment. 3. It is said that these five petitioners had encroached upon a public land and they were directed by the Sub-divisional Officer to remove the encroachment. A complaint was made that the encroachment was not removed by these petitioners. Hence the fine was imposed by Annexure-5. 4. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the total fine imposed comes to Rs. 46,300.00 on calculation. It is stated in paragraph No. 3 of the supplementary affidavit that they had removed the encroachment on 19th December, 1979. 5. The moot question for decision is : Whether the Sub-divisional Officer had jurisdiction to impose penalty for not removing the encroachment? 6. An ejectment order is required to be passed under Sec. 42 of the Santal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). If any one does not remove the encroachment as ordered under Sec. 42 of the Act, then the Deputy Commissioner is authorised to impose penalty under Sec. 67(2) of the Act for not removing the encroachment. Under Sec.2(vii) of the Act, the Sub-divisional Officer is authorised to exercise all the functions of the Deputy Commissioner. In order to clarify the position, the Deputy Commissioner had issued Standing Order (see page 163 of the Santal Parganas Manual, 1911). It is relevant to quote the Standing Order which runs as follows : 1. In exercise of the power conferred on me by Sec. 62 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 (Bihar Act XIV of 1949) I order that in pursuance of the Government notification No. II T-245/50-2344, dated the 26th March 1951 the functions under the sections of the said Act as specified below in Col. I of the schedule shall be exercised by the Deputy Commissioner throughout the district and those under Col. II of the said schedule by the Sub-divisional Officers within their respective jurisdictions. Deputy Commissioner Subdivisional Officers I II Secs.5, 14, 20(5), 43, 47(4) and (5), 50, 53 and 67(2). I of the schedule shall be exercised by the Deputy Commissioner throughout the district and those under Col. II of the said schedule by the Sub-divisional Officers within their respective jurisdictions. Deputy Commissioner Subdivisional Officers I II Secs.5, 14, 20(5), 43, 47(4) and (5), 50, 53 and 67(2). 16,19(2)(3)(a) and (b), (4),(5) and (6), 20(1), 21 (iv)(a)(4) and (6), 23(1) and (2),24(3), 25(2), 26, 27, 29, 31, 32(1)(2)(a) and (b),33 34, 35, 38(2), 39, 42 and 52. 2. I further order that in the matters which are to be dealt with by the Deputy Commissioner, the Sub-divisional officers will receive all petitions and applications, conduct preliminary enquiry and then submit the record with reports and observations to this Court where final order will be passed after hearing the parties, where necessary. R. Prasad, 26-5-1951 Deputy Commissioner. 7. Under Sec. 62 of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner is authorised to issue such an order. On a perusal of the aforesaid Standing Order, it is clear that the Deputy Commissioner can only impose penalty under Sec. 67(2) of the Act. It is also clear from paragraph No. 2 of the Standing Order that the complaint can be received about the imposition of the penalty by the Sub-divisional Officer and the Sub-Divisional Officer will forward the same to the Deputy Commissioner for passing the order of imposition of penalty. It is also clear from Sec. 67(3) of the Act that the appeal will lie to the Commissioner against the imposition of penalty by the Deputy Commissioner. 8. In the present case, the Sub-divisional Officer imposed the penalty for not removing the encroachment. Such a penalty can only be imposed under Sec. 67(2) of the Act read with the Standing Order by the Deputy Commissioner and not by the Sub-divisional Officer. In this view of the matter we hold that the imposition of the penalty by the Sub-divisional Officer as contained in Annexure-5 is illegal and invalid in the eye of law. We, therefore, quash the order contained in Annexure-5 and hold that the petitioners will not pay any penalty to the State or to the Sub-divisional Officer or to the Deputy Commissioner. 9. In these circumstances, the petition is allowed and Annexure-5 is quashed, but there will be no order for costs.