JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.05.2006, passed by the respondent no.2 in R.M.A No. 24/1983-84, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was rejected and further prayer has been made for quashing the order passed by the respondent no.3 in R.E. Case No. 124/82, whereby the order of eviction was passed against the petitioners by cancelling the order of mutation. 2. The factual matrix of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the land under Jamabandi No. 30 of Mouza Khutahari, Thana No. 26, P.S-Jarmundi (here-in-after referred as the 'said land') was recorded in the name of Hardayal Manjhi, son of Raghu Manjhi. The said land was transferred to Maharaj Durbey and Dhiraj Durbey in the year 1936 by Hardayal Manjhi, son of Raghu Manjhi by way of family arrangement. It is claimed by the petitioners that their predecessors were in possession of the said land and were cultivating the same on payment of rent to Handwa Estate till the vesting of the Zamindari. In the year 1965-66, Maharaj Durbey and the sons of Dhiraj Durbey had filed an application for mutation vide Mutation Case No. 14 of 1965-66 and during the pendency of the mutation proceeding, Maharaj Durbey died, whereupon the Circle Officer, Jarmundi ordered for mutation vide order dated 21.03.1967 in favour of the petitioners and thereafter the petitioners paid the rent of the said land. When the Mouza Khutahari was in settlement operation, on the basis of the report of Khanapuri staff, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Nonihaat exercising power under Section 42 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred as the Act) initiated a proceeding for the eviction of the petitioners by means of R.E Case No. 124 of 1982 and finally the order of eviction was passed which was communicated on 05.07.1983. The petitioners preferred appeal being Rev. Misc. Appeal (R.M.A) No. 24 of 1983-84, but the same was also dismissed by holding that the appellants failed to establish 12 years of continuous cultivating possession upon the said land prior to 01.11.1949. The petitioners preferred appeal being Rev. Misc. Appeal (R.M.A) No. 24 of 1983-84, but the same was also dismissed by holding that the appellants failed to establish 12 years of continuous cultivating possession upon the said land prior to 01.11.1949. During the pendency of the writ petition, a notice dated 17.07.2007 was served to the petitioners by which they were restrained from cultivating the said land and as such, the said notice has also been challenged by way of filing I.A No. 3192 of 2007 which was allowed vide order dated 30.01.2008. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the said land was acquired by the ancestors of the petitioners in the year 1936 by way of family arrangement. It is further submitted that the petitioners have acquired occupancy right over the said land under Section 27 of the Santhal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872. The transaction had taken place nearly 46 years back and as such the same could not have been done in the manner as has been done in the present case without any finding on the question of law of limitation. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the said land is non-transferable agricultural land of Santhal Parganas and is governed by the provisions of the Act, hence the petitioners have been rightly evicted from the lands in question. The learned Settlement Officer, Dumka has rightly come to the conclusion that 12 years continuous possession of the petitioners over the said land prior to 01.11.1949 could not be established. The petitioners have earlier claimed that the said land was transferred to them by way of Danpatra, but they have failed to produce the same before the Court below. In the writ petition, the petitioners are praying that the land was obtained by way of family arrangement. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 submits that earlier there was Eviction (Alienation) No. 990/1937-38 in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka with respect to the entire land of Gantzor’s Jamabandi No. 30 and only possession of Bhangi Durbey was found for more than 12 years in respect of plot no. 253 and other alienees were evicted and the land was converted into Pradhani jote. The rest land was restored to the Jamabandi raiyat Hardayal Manjhi, the father of the respondent nos. 253 and other alienees were evicted and the land was converted into Pradhani jote. The rest land was restored to the Jamabandi raiyat Hardayal Manjhi, the father of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 against which no appeal was preferred and as such the same attained finality. There cannot be any occupancy right on the ground of adverse possession unless such possession is for more than 12 years prior to 01.11.1949 when the Act came into force. It is also submitted that the party who is claiming adverse possession must mention the date from which he is in possession and the burden of proof of such possession also lies upon him. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. It appears that the land was recorded in the name of one Hardayal Manjhi son of Raghu Manjhi. It is claimed by the petitioners that the same was transferred to the ancestors of the petitioners in the year 1936 by Hardayal Manjhi, son of Raghu Manjhi, who happened to be the cousin of the mother of Maharaj Durbey and Dhiraj Durbey by way of family arrangement and since then the ancestors of the petitioners had been in possession of the said land and cultivating the same on payment of rent to Handwa Estate till the vesting of the of Zamindari. Suddenly, during the settlement operation, a proceeding under Section 42 of the Act was initiated, wherein the order of eviction was passed and the appeal and revision of the petitioners were also dismissed by holding that the petitioners have failed to establish 12 years continuous cultivating possession upon the said land prior to 01.11.1949. In the case of Deonarayan Singh Vs. Commissioner Of Bhagalpur Division reported in 1985 PLJR 1 the Full Bench of Patna High Court (during the period of unified Bihar) in para 20 and 21 held as under:- 20 On a conspectus of the relevant statutory provisions, on principle and in the light of the aforesaid precedent, it would appear that three distinct situations may arise in the context of perfecting title by adverse possession where the original transfer is in contravention of the statute. For the sake of clearity these may be dealt with individually in the reverse chronological order. (i) A transfer in contravention of sub-sec.(1) or (2) of S.20 of the Act. For the sake of clearity these may be dealt with individually in the reverse chronological order. (i) A transfer in contravention of sub-sec.(1) or (2) of S.20 of the Act. Obviously such a transfer would inevitably be after the enforcement of the Act on the 1st of Nov. 1949. In view of the clear provisions of sub-secs.(3), (4) and (5) of S.20 itself and the related provisions of Ss.42, 64, 65 and 69 of the said Act and the adjudication of the Full Bench in proposition (v) in Bhaurilal Jains case ( AIR 1973 Pat 1 ) (supra), no question of any acquisition of title by adverse possession or perfecting the same in this context can at all arise. (ii) A transfer in contravention of S.27 of Regulation III of 1872 with regard to which the prescriptive period of 12 years has not elapsed on the 1st of Nov. 1949. In such a case time for perfecting title by adverse possession would in law stop running from the date of the enforcement of the Act on Nov. 1, 1949, and if the prescriptive period of 12 years is not completed before that, the right or title would remain inchoate and cannot be perfected thereafter by virtue of adverse possession. This would follow from proposition (iv) of the Full Bench in Bhaurilal Jains case (supra). In such a case the Deputy Commissioner under S.42 of the Act read with the other relevant provisions may at any time on his own motion or on an application made to him pass an order ejecting the transferee holding the transfer in contravention of the statute. (iii) A transfer in contravention of S.27 of Regulation III of 1872 in which the transferee has been in continuous adverse cultivating possession for 12 years prior to the 1st of Nov. 1949. In view of cl. (a) of the proviso to sub-sec.(3) of S.27 of the said Regulation, the transferee herein became immune to eviction if he had been in continuous cultivating possession for 12 years. He was thus allowed to perfect his title by way of adverse possession. 1949. In view of cl. (a) of the proviso to sub-sec.(3) of S.27 of the said Regulation, the transferee herein became immune to eviction if he had been in continuous cultivating possession for 12 years. He was thus allowed to perfect his title by way of adverse possession. This equally follows from proposition (v) in Bhaurilal Jains case laying down that the provisions of S.20 were prospective and not retrospective in effect and consequently they would not invalidate the title already perfected by adverse possession under Regulation III of 1872 despite its repeal and substitution on 1st Nov. 1949 by S.20 of the Act. 21. To finally conclude : The answer to the question posed at the outset is rendered in the affirmative and it is held that the prescriptive period of 12 years for perfecting the title by adverse possession (in case of a transfer which was originally in contravention of S.27 of Regulation III of 1872) would stop running on the date of the enforcement of the Act on 1st Nov. 1949. 7. In the aforesaid judgment of Deonarayan Singh (supra) the Full Bench of Patna High Court clearly held that a transferee in contravention of S.27 of Regulation III of 1872 may be evicted at any time under Section 42 of the Act unless he has acquired title by adverse possession being in continuous cultivating possession of 12 years before coming into force of the Act, 1949 i.e. 01.11.1949. In the present case, in order to prove the possession upon the said land, the petitioners have not produced any document. They are claiming that the Circle Officer, Jarmundi had granted mutation in their favour vide order dated 21.03.1967 and thereafter they paid rent of the said land to the Government. On the other hand, the private respondents have submitted that one Eviction (Alienation) case no.990/1937-38 was started with respect to the entire land of Gantzor’s Jamabandi No. 30 and the conversion of plot nos. 397, 250 and 241 measuring area of 4 Bigha and 16 dhurs was allowed as Pradhani Jote and rest land were ordered to be restored to the recorded tenant and in the said case, the name of the ancestors of the petitioners was not in picture. 397, 250 and 241 measuring area of 4 Bigha and 16 dhurs was allowed as Pradhani Jote and rest land were ordered to be restored to the recorded tenant and in the said case, the name of the ancestors of the petitioners was not in picture. As such, even if it is accepted that the petitioners came in possession of the land at any time after the year 1938, the claim of adverse possession being in continuous cultivating possession of 12 years prior to 1949 cannot be accepted. 8. For the reasons as aforesaid, the impugned order dated 23.05.2006, passed by the respondent no.2 in R.M.A No. 24/1983-84, and the order passed by the respondent no.3 in R.E. Case No. 124/82 appear to be in accordance with the relevant provisions and also the law laid down by the Full Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Deonarayan Singh (Supra). 9. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.