Judgment U. P. Singh, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has challenged the order of the Sub-divisional Officer dated 10-10-1979 contained in Annexure-1 of the supplimentary affidavit, whereby the petitioner has been evicted from the raiyati land in question. The order was passed by the Sub-divisional officer in the purported exercise of his jurisdiction under Sec.42 of the sanlhal Pargana, Tenancy (Supplimentary Provision) Act, 1949. Sec.42 reads as under : "effectment of a person in unauthorised possession of agricultural land. The Deputy Commissoner may at any time either on his own motion or on an application made to him pass an order for objectment of any person who has encroached upon, re-claimed, acquired or come into possession or an agricultural land in contravention of the provisions of this Act or any law or anything having the force of law in Santhal Pargana. " 2. The Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplimentary) Rules, 1950 which proacriben a proceedure under Rule 13 which are to be followed by the courts in dealing with the application, and other proceedings under the said Act, as it reads as follows : "the Deputy Commissioner may hold a court for hearing and determining any proceeding and application under the Act, at any place within the local limits of his jurisdiction, provided that the parties to the proceeding or application, or their agents, shall have due notice to attend at such place. " 3. The word deputy Commissioner has been defined in Sec.4 (vii)which means and included the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Sub-divisional officer or Deputy Collector, empowered by the State Government to discharge any of the function, of the Deputy Commissioner under this Act. 4. There is no dispute in this case that the Sub-divisional Officer was fully authorised and competent to dispose of the application under Sec.42 of the Act. The gole question raised by the petitioners counsel is that before execrising its jurisdiction under Sec.42 of the Act ejecting the petitioner from his raiyati land, the procedure under Rule 13 ought to have been followed. Meaning thereby that the petitioner was at no stage given due notice and the order of the Sub-divisional Officer was passed behind his back. The order suffers from the said infirmity. Meaning thereby that the petitioner was at no stage given due notice and the order of the Sub-divisional Officer was passed behind his back. The order suffers from the said infirmity. In any view of the matter, the petitioner was required to be heard after (six) Service of due notice to him before passing an order of ejectment under Sec.42 of the Act. The impugned order suffered from that infirmity as well. It is well settled principle that if the order was invalid at its very inception the same cannot be curred by appellate court. Here the question was the exercise of jurisdiction which was carried on without due notice to the petitioner. That infirmity remained uncured. Therefore, the impugned order contained in Annexure-1 of the supplementary affidavit quashed and consequently the subsequent orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner in appeal and the Commissioner in revision contained in Annexures-2 and 3 of the petition are also set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Sub-divisional officer to consider the whole matter afresh after giving due notice to the petitioner and the other party. It shall consider the question involved in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to the parties to lead such evidence an they may deem necessary in the interest of justice. 5. In the result, this application is allowed with the directions indicated above, but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.