JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J. – This writ application is directed against the orders dated 23.8.1979 passed by the respondent no. 3, 22.8.1980 passed by the respondent no. 2 and 23.3.1982 passed by the respondent no. 1 and as contained in Annexures 3, 4, and 5 to the writ application respectively. 2. The respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 by reason of the aforementioned order in purported exercise of their powers conferred upon them under section 32 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) issued a direction to the effect that the petitioners be evicted from certain agricultural lands. 3. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass and are not much in dispute. 4. The land in question comprising of plot nos. 29,439,608 and 616 of mouza Gundalia within Dumka Sub-Division in the district of Santhal Parganas were settled in favour of the petitioner in the years 1935, 1944 and 1950. The respondent nos. 4 and 5 purported to be aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said settlement filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka whereby and whereunder it was prayed, inter alia, that the settlement made in favour of the petitioner by village Pradhan be cancelled and the same be settled in favour of the said respondent. The said application is contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application. The aforementioned application was numbered as S.R. Case No. 159 of 1978-79. 5. Thereafter, the respondent no. 3 purporting to act as Collector under the provisions of the aforementioned Act called for a report from the Karamchari. who allegedly after looking to the purchas issued to the petitioners and other documents submitted a report on 27.3.1979 as contained in Annexure 2 to the writ application. In the said report the Karamehari categorically stated that the aforementioned settlements were made in favour of the petitioners and the petitioners are in possession thereof. 6. The respondent no. 3, however, did not serve any notice upon the petitioners and only on the basis of the aforementioned purported report as also on the basis of a purported local inspection held by him passed the impugned order as contained in Annexure 3 to the writ application. 7. The petitioners preferred an appeal from the said order before the respondent no. 2 which was also dismissed. 7. The petitioners preferred an appeal from the said order before the respondent no. 2 which was also dismissed. The petitioners there after preferred a revision application before the respondent no. 1 and the same was also dismissed by reason of Annexure 5. 8. Mr. S.R. Ghoshal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that in the facts and circumstances, of this case the impugned orders are bad in law and in this connection he raised three fold contentions. 9. He firstly submitted that the impugned order as contained in Annexure 3 was passed –without giving him an opportunity of hearing and without issuing any notice in that regard. The second contention of Mr. Ghoshal is that section 32 of the said Act will have no application in relation to the settlement made in the years 1935 and 1944 as the said Act itself came into force with effect from 1.11.1949 and the said Act is only prospective-in operation. 10. Mr. Ghoshal thirdly submitted that in any event the purported objection made by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application was wholly illegal in as much as the same was done after the expiry of a period of, one year when the reclamation was commenced and in any event, the same was not done within five years as contemplated under section 33 of the said Act. 11. Mr. M.S. Madhup, learned Standing Counsel no. 1 appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1, on the other hand submitted that the principles of natural justice were substantially complied with as the petitioners were given an opportunity to place his documents before the Karamchari concerned and further even a local inspection was held by the respondent no. 3. Mr. Madhup further submitted that so far as other points raised by Mr. Ghoshal are concerned the same having, not been taken before the appellate or the revisional authorites the petitioners could not be, permitted to raise the said points for the first time in this writ application. 12. With regard to the first point Mr. Ghoshal had drawn my attention to the statements made in paragraph 18 of the writ application which reads as follows : – “That respondent no. 12. With regard to the first point Mr. Ghoshal had drawn my attention to the statements made in paragraph 18 of the writ application which reads as follows : – “That respondent no. 3 before passing the aforesaid order did not give any notice to the petitioners either to show cause or to represent themselves at the time of the hearing of the application, filed by some of the villagers headed by respondent no.5 as stated above. The order was passed behind their back although the said order affected them at large.” 13. In this case no counter affidavit has been filed and as such, the statements which are uncontroverted, thus, have, got to be accepted as correct. 14. For the purpose of appreciating the position of law arising in this case the provisions of sections 32 and 33 of the aforementioned Act may be quoted which reads as follows : – Section 32 “Objection before the deputy Commissioner against settlement of waste land and vacant holdings : – (1) A person, if aggrieved by any act of the village headman or mulraiyat or landlord, as the case may be, in settling or refusing to settle waste land or a vacant holding, or if aggrieved by any act of any other person in respect of such land or holding, may make an application before the Deputy Commissioner within one year from the date on which reclamation in pursuance of settlement was commenced or settlement was refused. (2) (a) On receipt of such an application the – Deputy Commissioner shall, serve in the prescribed manner on the parties interested other than the applicant, notice of the date on which he intends to hear and decide the application. (b) After serving the notice required by clause (a) and hearing, the parties and alter the enquiry the Deputy Commissioner may, in cases where settlement has been made, either confirm or modify or set aside the settlement, or, in cases where settlement has been refused, order the waste land or vacant holding to be settled. He may himself settle the land or holding in question with a Jamabandi raiyat in accordance with the principles laid down in section 28 and in the record-of rights on such terms as he may think proper. He may himself settle the land or holding in question with a Jamabandi raiyat in accordance with the principles laid down in section 28 and in the record-of rights on such terms as he may think proper. (c) No claim for compensation by any person evicted from land reclaimed or held in contravention of the provisions of this Act or any law or anything having the force of law in the Santhal Parganas shall be admissible.” Section 33 – Settlement of waste land liable to be set aside if not cultivated within five years : – “In the event of any land settled as aforesaid not being brought under cultivation within a period of five years from the date of settlement, it shall be open to the Deputy Commissioner on an application made by a jamabandi raiyat, the village headman, mulraiyat or the landlord, as the case may be, to set aside the settlement and to make such re-settlement as is permissible under this Act or any law or anything having the force of law in the Santhal Parganas.” 15. From a perusal of the aforementioned provisions it would appear that the Deputy Commissioner was bound to serve a notice in the manner prescribed on the parties interested and the said notice should have communicated the date on which he intends to hear and decide the applications. 16. In terms of section 771 of the said Act rules have been prescribed and in terms of rule 9 of the Santhal parganas Tenancy (Supplementary) Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Rule) a notice is required to be served in form ‘E’. The said rule 9 reads as follows : - “Rules regarding the manner of the service of a notice under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 32 : (1) The notice of the date on which the Deputy Commissioner intends to hear and decide the application under Sub section (1) of section 32 shall be served in the same manner as summons on defendant under the Santhal Civil Rules. (2) Notice on the Jamabandi raiyats shall be served by proclaiming the date and place of hearing by beat of drum in the village in which the waste land or vacant holding situates and by affixing a copy of the notice at some conspicuous place in or near the land or holding in presence of at least two persons. (2) Notice on the Jamabandi raiyats shall be served by proclaiming the date and place of hearing by beat of drum in the village in which the waste land or vacant holding situates and by affixing a copy of the notice at some conspicuous place in or near the land or holding in presence of at least two persons. (3) The notice shall be in Form ‘E’ 17. Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 32 further provides the manner in which the orders for confirmation or setting aside the settlement are to be made. 18. In terms of section 33 of the said Act if a land which was settled was not being brought in cultivation within a period of five years from the date of settlement it would be open to the deputy Commissioner to set aside the settlement and to make such re-settlement as is permissible under Act or any law or anything having the force of law in the Santhal Parganas. In view of the facts as mentioned hereinbefore, it is evident that the petitioners were not given due notice. 19. From a perusal of Annexures 4 and 5 to the writ application further it appears that although the petitioners took the aforementioned objection of not having been given any notice in terms of the aforementioned provisions of section 32 of the said Act, the appellate authority as also the revisional authority purported to have satisfied themselves that there had been a substantial compliance thereof by arriving at the finding that there had been an enquiry by the Karamchari and further an enquiry and investigation was done by the Collector himself. As seen hereinbefore, the statute provides for the hearing of such an objection in a particular manner. The Collector under the said Act is the statutory authority. It is now well settled that a statutory functionary must exercise its statutory function within the four corners of the statute. It is also well settled that were statutory functionary has to exercise its power in a particular manner, such power has to be exercised in the manner prescribed or not at all. 20. It is now well settled that a statutory functionary must exercise its statutory function within the four corners of the statute. It is also well settled that were statutory functionary has to exercise its power in a particular manner, such power has to be exercised in the manner prescribed or not at all. 20. In view of the fact that sub-section (2) of section 32 of the said Act read with rule 9 of the rules which provides the manner in which a notice is to be served as also the contents off the notice, in my opinion, the compliance therefore cannot be said to have been substantially made only because the Collector had called for a report from the Karamchari. Reference in this connection may be made to a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Ramnandan Prasad v. State of Bihar (1983 P.L.J.R. 266) wherein it has been held that if there is a violation of principles of natural justice the defect cannot be cured even by giving opportunity by the appellate authority or by the revisional authority. 21. It is also axiomatic to note the observation of De Smith’s Judicial review of Administrative Action, 4th edition at page 241-2 where the learned authority commented that if an order has been passed without complying with the principles of natural justice the said order becomes a nullity and even the appellate authority cannot cure the defect as no appeal lies from an order which is nullity and the appellate proceedings should also be treated as void. In view of the findings aforementioned, there is no doubt that the petitioner must succeed on the first point alone. 22. However, it is pertinent to note that section 32 of the said Act will have application only in respect of such cases where settlements have been made after coming into force of the said Act. The settlements which were made by the village Pradhan before coming into the force of the said Act cannot be modified or varied or set aside in terms of section 32 of the said Act. The provisions of the said Act obviously have a prospective operation. It may further be mentioned that the respondent nos. The settlements which were made by the village Pradhan before coming into the force of the said Act cannot be modified or varied or set aside in terms of section 32 of the said Act. The provisions of the said Act obviously have a prospective operation. It may further be mentioned that the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 while passing the impugned orders as contained in Annexures 3, 4 and 5 did not at all take into consideration the jurisdictional fact, namely, as to whether the application filed by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 (Annexure 1) was within the purview of section 32 and section 33 or not. However the answer to the said question would depend upon finding on such appropriate issue if and when the same is framed in that regard upon a proper application filed by a person aggrieved. 23. In the result, this writ application is allowed and Annexures 3, 4, and 5 are herby quashed. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.