JUDGMENT : (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) : The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 09.05.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.1597 of 2007, whereby and whereunder the writ petition was dismissed declining to interfere with order dated 16.01.2007 passed by Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka in Rev. Misc. Appeal Case No. 100/2005-06, by which the appeal filed on behalf of petitioner has been rejected; and also for quashing order dated 27.02.2006 passed in R.M.A Case No. 33-1997-98 by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka by which the case preferred by the respondents against order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dumka in R.E. Case No. 53/1995-96 was allowed. 2. The brief facts, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, read as under: The land situated at plot No. 184 area 1 Bigha 5 Katha 17 dhurs, Plot No. 60 area 16 Katha 10 dhurs and Plot No. 61 area 9 Katha 10 dhurs was settled by the ex-landlord vide Patta No. 46 dated 31.12.1944 with Katki Mian, the father of the petitioner-appellant, after the recorded tenant abandoned the land. The father of the petitioner came in peaceful possession of the said land and his name was mutated vide Mutation Case No. 9 of 1991-92 and has duly been entered in Register-II. Further, another portion of land situated at plot no. 184 area 1 bigha 12 katha was donated by danpatra vide Bhodan Danpatra dated 07.05.1962 under the provisions of Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1954’], which was confirmed vide order dated 19.08.1987 after due enquiry in Bhoodan Case No. 1986-87. Thereafter, mutation was also done in connection with the said property vide Bhoodan Mutation Case No. 3 of 1988-89 and the petitioner remained in peaceful possession over the same. Thereafter, mutation was also done in connection with the said property vide Bhoodan Mutation Case No. 3 of 1988-89 and the petitioner remained in peaceful possession over the same. But the private respondents filed a petition under Section 42 of the Santhal Pragana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 for restoration of aforesaid lands, which was numbered as R.E. Case No.53 of 1995-96 and accordingly, notice was sent to the father of the petitioner and after considering the show cause the Sub Divisional Officer rejected the petition of the recorded tenant vide order dated 23.08.1997, against which, the private respondents filed appeal being R.M.A. Case No. 33 of 1997-98 before the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka who set aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dumka and cancelled the settlement of the father of the petitioner vide order dated 27.02.2006 ordering for restoration of the land in question. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, the petitioner preferred revision being Rev. Misc. Appeal No. 100/2005-06 before the Commissioner, Dumka which was dismissed vide order 16.01.2007. The writ petitioner being aggrieved with the order passed by the revenue authorities approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1597 of 2007, which was dismissed holding that since there is consistent finding of the appellate authority as well as revisional authority that patta of the year 1994 as well as property claimed to have been obtained by way of danpatra under the Act of Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954 are collusive document, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned orders passed by the appellate as well as revisional authority, against which, the instant intra-court appeal has been preferred. 3. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel being assisted by Mr. Durga Charan Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that lis is related to two chunks of land. First pertains to the land which was settled under the provisions of Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954 so far it relates to the land of plot no. 184 area 1 bigha 12 katha, which was donated vide Bhodan Danpatra dated 07.05.1962 and thereafter the said Bhodan Danpatra was confirmed vide order dated 19.08.1987 after due enquiry made in Bhoodan Case No. 1986-87. 184 area 1 bigha 12 katha, which was donated vide Bhodan Danpatra dated 07.05.1962 and thereafter the said Bhodan Danpatra was confirmed vide order dated 19.08.1987 after due enquiry made in Bhoodan Case No. 1986-87. Another land, which was alleged to be the abandoned property of the landlord settled a portion thereof being Plot No. 184 area 1 Bigha 5 Katha 17 dhurs, Plot No. 60 area 16 Katha 10 dhurs and Plot No. 61 area 9 Katha 10 dhurs to Katki Mian to the father of the petitioner-appellant vide Settlment Patta No. 46 dated 31.12.1944. Contention has been raised so far as land settled under the provisions of Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954 is concerned that the land was donated in favour of father of petitioner, mutation was done vide Bhoodan Mutation Case No. 3 of 1988-89 and the petitioner remained in peaceful possession over the same but it was never challenged by any person. So far as the land settled by the landlord of an abandoned property settled vide Settlment Patta No. 46 dated 31.12.1944 is concerned, it has been submitted that the same was in possession of the father of the petitioner since 31.12.1944, the day when it was settled in favour of father of the petitioner and thereafter name of the father of the petitioner was mutated vide Mutation Case No. 9 of 1991-92 and was duly entered in Register-II. The grievance of the writ petitioner-appellant is that without questioning the settlement of the year 1944 and the donation of land made vide Bhoodan Danpatra dated 07.05.1962 under the provisions of Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954, a petition was filed by the private respondent under Section 42 of the Santhal Pragana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 for restoration of aforesaid lands which was numbered as R.E. Case No.53 of 1995-96. The petitioner, on being called upon after issuance of notice and asked to file show cause, appeared and filed show cause. The revenue-authority i.e., the Sub Divisional Officer rejected the petition order dated 23.08.1997. Thereafter, the private respondents filed appeal being R.M.A. Case No. 33 of 1997-98 which was allowed setting aside order dated 23.08.1997 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dumka and cancelled the settlement of the father of the petitioner made vide order dated 27.02.2006 and direction was passed for restoration of the land in question. Thereafter, the private respondents filed appeal being R.M.A. Case No. 33 of 1997-98 which was allowed setting aside order dated 23.08.1997 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dumka and cancelled the settlement of the father of the petitioner made vide order dated 27.02.2006 and direction was passed for restoration of the land in question. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, preferred revision being Rev. Misc. Appeal No. 100/2005-06 before the Commissioner, Dumka which was dismissed vide order 16.01.2007 affirming the order passed by the appellate authority. Further grievance of the writ petitioner-appellant is that the appellate as well as the revisional authority has wrongly declared the patta of the year 1944 collusive as it was duly issued by ex-landlord and was also mutated in the name of the father of the appellant. Further, the authority has wrongly declared the Bhudan Patra as collusive document particularly in view of the fact that the said Danpatra was duly confirmed by the respondents-authorities vide order dated 19.08.1987 after due enquiry in Bhoodan Case No. 1986-87 and at the relevant point of time no appeal/objection was filed against the said order. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has also taken the ground apart from above that the learned Single Judge has not assigned any reason of not interfering with the order passed by appellate and revisional authority pertaining to Plot No. 184 area 1 Bigha 5 Katha 17 dhurs, Plot No. 60 area 16 Katha 10 dhurs and Plot No. 61 area 9 Katha 10 dhurs, which was settled by the ex-landlord vide Patta No. 46 dated 31.12.1944 with Katki Mian, the father of the petitioner-appellant, after the recorded tenant abandoned the land. 4. The respondents had appeared and taken the ground that donation of the land under the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954 has been considered to be illegal in view of non-observance of the procedure as stipulated under Section 11 of the Act, 1954. Further ground was taken by the private respondents and the State that the land under Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954 is only to be allocated in favour of landless person or village community, Gram Panchayat or cooperative society organized by the committee but the petitioner as per his own claim was not a landless person and accordingly the petitioner was not entitled to this property under the said Act. Therefore, submission has been made that the learned Single Judge, after considering these aspects of the matter, since has dismissed the writ petition by refusing to interfere with the order passed by the appellate as well as revisional authority, requires no interference by this Court. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 6. This Court, after going through the material available on record and on appreciation of rival submission advanced on behalf of parties, has found following undisputed facts which requires to refer herein for proper appreciation of the lis. It is evident that the writ petitioner is claiming title over two chunks of land in question; one by way of Settlement Patta No. 46 dated 31.12.1944 and another chunk of land vide Bhodan Danpatra dated 07.05.1962 under the provisions of Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954. The private respondents filed a petition under Section 42 of the Santhal Pragana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 for restoration of aforesaid lands, being R.E. Case No.53 of 1995-96 which was rejected by the Original Authority i.e., Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 23.08.1997, against which, the private respondents filed appeal being R.M.A. Case No. 33 of 1997-98 which was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka vide order dated 27.02.2006 setting aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dumka cancelling the settlement of the father of the petitioner vide order dated 27.02.2006 and ordered for restoration of the land in question, against which the petitioner preferred revision being Rev. Misc. Appeal No. 100/2005-06 before the Commissioner, Dumka which was dismissed vide order 16.01.2007, hence, the writ petition. But the learned Single Judge did not interfere with the order passed by the appellate and revisional authority. Misc. Appeal No. 100/2005-06 before the Commissioner, Dumka which was dismissed vide order 16.01.2007, hence, the writ petition. But the learned Single Judge did not interfere with the order passed by the appellate and revisional authority. The writ petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the land in question by virtue of settlement made by way of Settlement Patta No. 46 dated 31.12.1944 and Bhodan Danpatra dated 07.05.1962 by taking the ground that the land which was settled by the landlord or donated under the provisions of Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954 have never been challenged by anybody and once it has attained its finality there is no reason to pass order for ejecting the petitioner from the possession of the land in question in view of the provision as contained under Section 42 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949. This Court, therefore, is to consider the legality and propriety of the order passed by the appellate as also the revisional authority with respect to two plots settled in favour of petitioner; first by way of Settlement Patta No. 46 dated 31.12.1944 and second Bhodan Danpatra dated 07.05.1962. 7. This Court is now proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the order passed by the revenue authorities vis-à-vis learned Single Judge so far as it relates to settlement of land made by way of Settlement Patta No. 46 dated 31.12.1944 and Bhodan Danpatra dated 07.05.1962 under the provisions of Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954. 8. The writ petitioner claims ownership over plot no. 184 area 1 bigha 12 katha by way of settlement made vide Bhodan Danpatra dated 07.05.1962 under the provisions of Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954 and the aforesaid Danpatra was confirmed vide order dated 19.08.1987 in Bhoodan Case No. 1986-87. Further, the aforesaid confirmation of Danpatra was not questioned by anybody including the private respondents at the relevant point of time and it is argued that once it attained finality there cannot be any exercise of power under Section 42 of the Act, 1954. Further, the aforesaid confirmation of Danpatra was not questioned by anybody including the private respondents at the relevant point of time and it is argued that once it attained finality there cannot be any exercise of power under Section 42 of the Act, 1954. This Court, on consideration of the aforesaid submission, is not having dispute that the land settled under the provisions of Act, 1954 if once donated by issuance of danpatra and the same if confirmed is not to be questioned by anyone but simultaneous it is to be seen that settlement so made is in consonance with the provisions of the Act, 1954 or not. 9. This Court, in order to assess that fact, is required to refer the statutory provision as contained therein. Section 10 thereof deals with procedure for donation of land; Section 11 thereof speaks about Publication of, and investigation upon, the Yagna Danpatra; Section 13 says about vesting of lands in the Bhoodan Yagna Committee and Section 14 speaks about Grant of land to landless persons. For ready reference, Section 10, 11, 13 and 14 are quoted as under: “10. Section 10 - Donation of land:- (1) Any person being the owner of any land may donate such land to the Bhoodan Yagna Committee or to Shri Acharya Vinoba Bhave by a declaration in writing in that behalf (hereinafter called the Bhoodan Yagna Danpatra): Provided that no person shall, for the purposes of this Act, be entitled to donate any land of the following classes, namely:" (a) any cremation or burial ground, tank or pathway; (b) lands recorded in the record of rights as gair mazrua-am; (c) lands held under service tenures; (d) any forest land notified under any of the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 or the Bihar Private Forest Act, 1947. (e) lands containing mines and minerals, whether discovered or undiscovered or whether being worked or not; and (f) any other land which the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify. (2) The Bhoodan Yagna Danpatra shall be filed before the Revenue Officer appointed under this Act as soon as it is made. (e) lands containing mines and minerals, whether discovered or undiscovered or whether being worked or not; and (f) any other land which the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify. (2) The Bhoodan Yagna Danpatra shall be filed before the Revenue Officer appointed under this Act as soon as it is made. Section 11 - Publication of, and investigation upon, the Yagna Danpatra:- [(1) On receipt of the Bhoodan Yagna Danpatra, the Revenue Officer shall cause the same to be published in the prescribed manner inviting written objections thereto within a period of thirty days from the date of publication. (2) If no written objection is filed within the period mentioned in sub-section (1), the Revenue Officer shall make a summary inquiry in the prescribed manner as to the right, title and interest of the donor in such land and his competency to make a gift. (3) If any written objection is filed within the period mentioned in sub-section (1), the Revenue Officer shall register such objection and fix a date for hearing of which a public notice shall be given in the prescribed manner and a copy of such notice shall be served on the donor and the objector by registered post with acknowledgment due and on the date so fixed the Revenue Officer shall hear the donor and the objector. (4) After holding the summary enquiry under sub-section (1) or after hearing the donor and the objector under sub-section (3), as the case may be, the Revenue Officer may supersede the Bhoodan Yagna Danpatra in whole or in part on any of the following grounds, namely:" (i) that the donor is incompetent to make a gift; (ii) that the title of the donor is defective; (iii) that the donor is not a person entitled to donate the land under the provisions of Section 12. (5) If the Bhoodan Yagna Danpatra is not superseded in whole or in part under sub-section (4) the Revenue Officer shall confirm it in whole and if it is superseded in part, he shall confirm it in respect of the part which is not superseded]. (6) The donation of the land in respect of which the Bhoodan Yagna Danpatra is superseded shall be cancelled and the right, title and interest of any person in such land before the date of the Yagna Danpatra shall not be affected in any manner. (6) The donation of the land in respect of which the Bhoodan Yagna Danpatra is superseded shall be cancelled and the right, title and interest of any person in such land before the date of the Yagna Danpatra shall not be affected in any manner. (7) The Revenue Officer shall, in the hearing and disposal of objections under this section, have the powers of a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), in respect of the following matters, namely:" (a) summoning and enforcing attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of any document; (c) reception of evidence on affidavits; (d) requisitioning any public record from any Court or Office; (e) issuing commission for examination of witnesses: and such proceeding before the Revenue Officer shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 and for the purposes of Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. (8) The Collector may at any time transfer a petition filed under sub-section (2) any other Revenue Officer, within his jurisdiction, for disposal. Section 13 - Vesting of lands in the Bhoodan Yagna Committee:- (1) The right, title and interest of the donor in any land donated to Shri Acharya Vinoba Bhave or to the Bhoodan Yagna Committee shall, on confirmation of the Bhoodan Yagna Danpatra in respect of that land, stand transferred to, and vest in, the Committee for the purposes of the Bhoodan Yagna, [with effect from the date of the donation]. (2) The land vesting in the Committee shall not be liable to attachment or sale in execution of any decree or order passed by the Civil Court against the Bhoodan Yagna Committee. (3) [*****] 14. (2) The land vesting in the Committee shall not be liable to attachment or sale in execution of any decree or order passed by the Civil Court against the Bhoodan Yagna Committee. (3) [*****] 14. Section 14 - Grant of land to landless persons:- (1) The Committee or such other authority or person, as the Committee may specify, either generally or in respect of any local area; in the prescribed manner may [subject to sub-section (2) grant lands which have vested in the Committee to landless persons [or to a village community, Gram Panchayat, or a Co-operative Society organised by the Committee] and the grantee of the land shall acquire the same right, title and interest as the donor had in such land: Provided that : (i) in case the donor's interest in such land was that of proprietor or tenure-holder as defined in the Bihar Land Reforms, 1950, the grantee's right, title and interest shall be that of an occupancy raiyat liable to pay rent to the State Government; (ii) in case the estate or tenure, as the case may be, in which such land is situated has vested in the State under the said Act, the right, title and interest of the grantee shall also be subject to the provisions of that Act; and (iii) in case such land has vested in the Committee under Section 12, the right, title and interest of the grantee shall be that of an occupancy raiyat liable to pay rent to the State Government: Provided further that : (i) [grantee, his heirs assigns or successor-in-interest shall not be competent to sublet or transfer the land or any portion thereof by sale, gift or otherwise, but shall be competent to transfer the same by exchange with the previous permission of the Committee in writing; and (ii) the rights of the grantee over such land shall be subject to such other restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed1[by the Committee]. (2) All grants shall be made as far as may be in accordance with the scheme of Bhoodan Yagna as may be prescribed. [Provided that in making grants of waste lands in the district of Santhal Parganas which have vested in the Committee, the principle prescribed for settlement of waste lands under section 28 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provision) Act, 1949 (Bihar Act XIV of 1949), shall be followed]. [Provided that in making grants of waste lands in the district of Santhal Parganas which have vested in the Committee, the principle prescribed for settlement of waste lands under section 28 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provision) Act, 1949 (Bihar Act XIV of 1949), shall be followed]. (2) For the purpose of grant of lands under this section, the Committee may, by regulations, fix after taking into consideration the quality of lands, the maximum and minimum areas to be granted to a landless person [or to a village community, Gram Panchayat or a Co-operative Society organised by the Committee] and different areas may be fixed for different districts, subdivisions or thanes. Explanation.--for the purposes of this section "occupancy raiyat", means a raiyat having a right of occupancy in the land held by him [within the meaning of the tenancy law of the area in which it is situated].” 10. It is evident from the provision of Section 11 and 14, if read together that the donation of land is to be made in favour of landless person of such land which has been donated under the provision of Section 11. The foremost condition for donation of land by virtue of Danpatra under Section 11 is that the person concerned, in whose favour land is to be donated, must be landless person. But it would be evident from the admission made on the part of the writ petitioner-appellant himself that he was having his own property by virtue of settlement being Settlement Patta No. 46 dated 31.12.1944 and in that view of the matter, the writ petitioner cannot be said to be a landless person in view of provision of Section 14 of the Act, 1954 and as such is not entitled for donation under the provisions of Act, 1954. The learned Single Judge has considered that aspect of the matter and has come to the conclusion that the petitioner, on the date of donation by virtue of danparta, was having the land by virtue of patta of the year 1944 but that aspect of the matter has been suppressed. The learned Single Judge has considered that aspect of the matter and has come to the conclusion that the petitioner, on the date of donation by virtue of danparta, was having the land by virtue of patta of the year 1944 but that aspect of the matter has been suppressed. Further, the writ petitioner has entered into Bhugat boundage mortgage by virtue of registered deed, which itself shows that the petitioner entered into this property by virtue of that document and expiry of lease period continue to remain in possession of the property but the petitioner tried to justify its right, title, interest and possession over the property under the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954. It is, thus, evident that the writ petitioner by suppressing the material fact showing himself to be landless person, even though land was owned by him, has got the danpatra and as such the same has been considered to be obtained on suppression of material fact. It appears from the fact that the land claimed to have been donated and settled with the appellant has been found to be incorrect on the ground that the certificate mentions the land as being given to the appellant which bears the LTI of one Fagu Laiya as donor. It appears from the fact that the land claimed to have been donated and settled with the appellant has been found to be incorrect on the ground that the certificate mentions the land as being given to the appellant which bears the LTI of one Fagu Laiya as donor. The danpatra which was signed by the donor in favour of Bhoodan Committee and the patta of settlement made by Bhoddan Committee made in favour of any person are two separate transactions manifested into two separate documents which are completely missing here; meaning thereby the record suggest that the danpatra which is signed by the donor in favour of the committee and the patta of settlement made by the committee are two separate transactions but two have been combined in one document which according to considered view of this Court is against the procedure due to the reason that the danpatra signed by the donor in favour of the bhoodan committee and patta of settlement made by Bhoodan committee are two separate documents and cannot be combined since first the land is to be donated in view of provision of Section 11 and the same is considered to be separate document in the light of provision of Section 11 by vesting the land under the committee and thereafter the committee in exercise of power conferred under Section 14 of the Act, 1954 will settle in favour of landless person and as per the eligibility condition applicable for such settlement. Herein both the documents have been combined in one document which cast doubt upon the genuineness of the aforesaid document, but the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been considered by Deputy Commissioner Land Reforms before confirming the donation of the land. Further, there is no proof that the donation was ever published for inviting any objection and determination of the genuineness of the donor’s title as required under the provisions of Section 11 of the Act, 1954. Further, there is no proof that the donation was ever published for inviting any objection and determination of the genuineness of the donor’s title as required under the provisions of Section 11 of the Act, 1954. The Revenue Authority, if on aforesaid premises, has considered the said danpatra to be collusive document and its acceptance by the learned Single Judge based upon the aforesaid reason cannot be said to suffer from an error in view of specific stipulation made under Section 11 and 12 and for the reason that the two documents or donation of land in favour of the committee is totally a separate proceeding as available under Section 11 and settlement by way of danpatra by the committee is different to that of the settlement by way of donation in view of provision of Section 14 of the Act, 1954. 11. The Second issue of the order of ejection passed against the land which has been settled in the year 1944 is concerned the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the land has been settled prior to coming into effect of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 i.e., in the year 1944, hence there was no bar in transfer of land by way of transfer of land or by any other mode but without taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter the land which was settled from which also the order of ejection has been filed under Section 42. Learned counsel for the respondents-State and private respondent have jointly submitted that it is incorrect on the part of appellant to take the ground that the land which was settled in the year 1944 there was no restriction in transfer of land in view of the fact that the land was settled prior to coming into effect of SPT Act, 1949. The case of the private respondents in particular was that there was jamabandi raiyat being Jamabandi Raiyat No. 13 and 30 since the year 1935 having his name mentioned in the Ganser Settlment but the writ petitioner by way of collusion has got prepared a settlement deed by the ex-landlord and now claiming his title over the land on the basis of aforesaid settlement. 12. 12. It has been contended that even prior to coming into effect of SPT Act, 1949 there was embargo in transfer of land in view of specific provision as contained under Section 25 of the Sonthal Praganas Rent Regulation 1886, which provides that the exemption of raiyats from liability of ejectment except by order of Deputy Commissioner. It has been contended that since the private respondents are Jamabandi Raiyat and as such their ejection can only be permissible by the order of the Deputy Commissioner in view of provision of Section 25 of the Regulation, 1886. 13. This Court, having heard learned counsel for the parties on the issue and on appreciation of the rival submissions advanced on behalf of parties, is now proceeding to decide the same. There is no dispute about the fact that the SPT Act, 1949 has been implemented w.e.f. 1st November, 1949 which contains a provision under Section 20 which says that there cannot be transfer by a raiyat of his right in his holding or any portion thereof, by sale, gift, mortgage, will, lease or any other contract or agreement, express or implied, shall be valid unless the right to transfer has been recorded in the record-of-rights, and then only to the extent to which such right is so recorded, provided a lease of raiyati land in any sub-division for the purpose of the establishment or continuance of an excise shop thereon may be validly granted or renewed by a raiyat for a period not exceeding one year, with the previous written permission of the Deputy Commissioner For ready reference, Section 20 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, is quoted hereunder as: (20) Transfer of raiyat’s rights – (1) No transfer by a raiyat of his right in his holding or any portion thereof, by sale, gift, mortgage, will, lease or any other contract or agreement, express or implied, shall be valid unless the right to transfer has been recorded in the record-of-rights, and then only to the extent to which such right is so recorded. Provided that a lease of raiyati land in any sub-division for the purpose of the establishment or continuance of an excise shop thereon may be validly granted or renewed by a raiyat for a period not exceeding one year, with the previous written permission of the Deputy Commissioner. Provided that a lease of raiyati land in any sub-division for the purpose of the establishment or continuance of an excise shop thereon may be validly granted or renewed by a raiyat for a period not exceeding one year, with the previous written permission of the Deputy Commissioner. Provided further that where gifts by a recorded Santhal raiyat to a sister and daughter are permissible under the Santal Law, such a raiyat may with the previous written permission of the Deputy Commissioner, validly make such a gift; Provided also that an aboriginal raiyat may, with the previous written permission of the deputy Commissioner, make a grant in respect of him lands not exceeding one half of the area of his holding to his widowed mother or to his wife for her maintenance after his death. (2) Notwithstanding any thing to the contrary contained in the record-or-rights, no right of an aboriginal raiyat in his holding or any portion thereof which is transferable shall be transferred in any manner to anyone but a bona fide cultivation aboriginal raiyat of the parganan or taluk or tappa in which the holding is situated. Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to a transfer made by an aboriginal raiyat of his right in his holding or portion thereof in favour of his gardi jamai or ghar jami. Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to a transfer made by an aboriginal raiyat of his right in his holding or portion thereof in favour of his gardi jamai or ghar jami. [Provided further that a raiyat who is a member of aboriginal tribes or aborigine cates may, with the previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner and a raiyat, who is not a member of the aboriginal tribes or aboriginal castes may without such previous sanction, enter into a simple mortgage in respect of his holding or a portion thereof with any Scheduled Bank within the meaning of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, or a society or bank registered or deemed to be registered under the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935(Bihar and Orissa Act VI of 1935) or a financial instituting or with a Company or a Corporation owned by or in which not less than fifty one percent of share capital is held by the State Government, or the central government, or partly by the Central government and which has been set up with a view to provide agricultural credit to cultivators.] (3) No transfer in contravention of sub—section (1) or (2) shall be registered, or shall be in any way recognised as valid by any Court, whether in exercise of civil, criminal or revenue jurisdiction. (4) No decree or order shall be passed by any Court or officer for the sale of the right of a raiyat in his holding or any portion thereof, nor shall any such right be sold in execution of any decree or order, unless the right of the raiyat to transfer has been recorded in the record-of-rights or provided in this Act and then only to the extent to which such right is so recorded or provided. [Provided that a holding or a portion thereof an occupancy raiyat may be sold in accordance with the procedure laid down in Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recover Act, 1914 (B and O. Act 4 of 1914) for the realisation of loans taken from any scheduled bank within the meaning of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, or a society or bank registered or deemed to be registered under the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (Bihar and Orissa Act VI of 1935) or 1. Ins, by Sec. 2 (a) of the Santal Pargans Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Amendment Act, 1975 (Bihar Act 17 of 1976) Published in Bihar Gazette, Extraordinary, dated 4.10.1975 Received assent on 13.8.1976 2. Ins. Be Sec. 2(b) of Bihar Act 17 of 1976. Financial institution, or a company or a corporation owned by or in which not less than fifty-one percent of share capital is held by the State Government or the Centre government or partly by the State Government and partly by the Central government and which has been set up with a view to provide agricultural credit to cultivators, but if the holding or portion thereof belongs to a raiyat who is member of aboriginal tribes or aboriginal castes, it shall not be sold to any person who is not a member of the aboriginal tribes or aboriginal castes. [(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 (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, has taken place in contravention of sub-section (1) or (2) or by any fraudulent method [including decrees obtained in suits by fraud or collusion’, he may, after giving reasonable opportunity to the transferees, 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 the case the transferor or heir is not available or is not willing to agree to such restoration, re-settle it with another raiyat belonging to the Scheduled Tribes according to the village custom for the disposal of an abandoned holding: Provided that if the transferee has within 30 years from the date of transfer, constructed any building or structure on such holding or portion thereof, the Deputy Commissioner, shall, if the transferor is not willing to pay the value of the same, order the transferee to remove the same withing a period of six months from the date of the order, or within such extended time not exceeding two years from the date of the order as the Deputy Commissioner may allow, failing which the Deputy Commissioner may get such building or structure removed: Provided further that where the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that the transferee has constructed a substantial structure or building on such holding or portion thereof before coming into force of the Bihar Scheduled Areas Regulation, 1969, he may, notwithstanding any other provisions of the Act, validate such a transfer where the transferee either, makes available to the transferor an alternative holding or portion thereof, as the case may be, of the equivalent value in the vicinity or pays adequate compensation to be determined by the Deputy Commissioner for rehabilitation of the transferor: Provided also that if after an enquiry the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that the transferee has acquired a title by adverse possession and that the transferred land should be restored or re-settled, he shall require the transferor or his heir or another raiyat, as the case may be to deposit with the Deputy Commissioner such sum of money as may be determined by the Deputy Commissioner having regard to the amount for which the land was transferred or the market value of the land, as the case may be, and the amount of any compensation for improvements effected to land which the Deputy, Commissioner may deem fair and equitable] 14. It appears from the provision of Sonthal Parganas Rent Regulation, 1886, which has been given effect to after preparation of the record of rights as was completed in the district of Santhal Parganas by the Santhal Pargana Settlement (Amendment) Act, 1908 [Regulation 3 of 1872), Section 27 thereof provides as under: “27(1). No transfer by a raiyat of his right in his holding or any portion thereof, by sale, gift, mortgage, lease or any other contract or agreement, shall be valid unless the right to transfer has been recorded in the record of rights, and then only to the extent to which such right is so recorded. (2).No transfer in contravention of Sub-section (1) shall be registered, or shall be in any way recognized as valid by any Court, whether in the exercise of civil, criminal or revenue jurisdiction. (3).If at any time it comes to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner that a transfer in contravention of Sub-section (1) has taken place: he may, in his discretion, evict the transferee and either restore the transferred land to the Raiyat or any heirs of the Raiyat who has transferred it, or resettle the land with another Raiyat according to the village custom for the disposal of an abandoned holding; Provided-(a)that the transferee whom it is proposed to evict has not been in continuous cultivating possession for twelve years; (b)that he is given an opportunity of showing cause against the order of eviction; and, (c)that all proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner under this section shall be subject to control and revision by the Commissioner.” It is evident from Section 27 that there shall not be transfer of raiyat of right by sale, gift mortgage, lease or any other contract or agreement, shall be valid unless the right to transfer has been recorded in the record of rights, and then only to the extent to which such right is so recorded. 15. Thus it appears that although the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act came in the year 1949 but prior to that there was provision under Section 25 of 1886 Regulation and under Section 27 Regulation of the year 1908. 15. Thus it appears that although the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act came in the year 1949 but prior to that there was provision under Section 25 of 1886 Regulation and under Section 27 Regulation of the year 1908. Further, it appears that Section 27 of the Act, 1908 which was deleted by the Act of 1949 and in its place Section 20 of the Act has been incorporated in the Act; meaning thereby prior to Section 20 there was already a provision regarding transfer of the raiyati rights as under Section 25 of 1886 Regulation and under Section 27 Regulation of the year 1908 and as such it is incorrect on the part of appellant to say that there was no embargo in transfer of the raiyati rights prior to coming into effect of SPT Act, 1949. 16. The settlement said to have been made in the year 1944 cannot be said to be the valid one since before vesting the land in the ex-landlord the requirement as provided under Section 25 of 1886 Regulation or Section 27 of 1908 Act was required to be observed in view of the fact that the private respondents were the jamabandi raiyats and without resorting to the procedure laid down under statutory command there cannot be any transfer of raiyat rights but if same have been done by the settlement as per the submissions made on behalf of appellant, which according to our considered view is in the teeth of the statutory command and hence is nullity in the eye of law. xxxxx 18. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken the ground that compensation case has also been initiated and as such tried to justify from the said document coupled with the issuance of rent receipts but the position of law is well settled that if the foundation is illegal the subsequent development cannot cure the illegality available in the foundation for the reason that if any illegality has been committed in its inception the same cannot be rectified by the subsequent development as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa and Anr. vs. Mamata Mohanty reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 , at paragraph 37: “37. It is a settled legal proposition that if an order is bad in its inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage. vs. Mamata Mohanty reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 , at paragraph 37: “37. It is a settled legal proposition that if an order is bad in its inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage. A subsequent action/development cannot validate an action which was not lawful at its inception, for the reason that the illegality strikes at the root of the order. It would be beyond the competence of any authority to validate such an order. It would be ironic to permit a person to rely upon a law, in violation of which he has obtained the benefits. If an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings consequent thereto will be non est and have to be necessarily set aside. A right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful origin. (Vide Upen Chandra Gogoi v. State of Assam, Mangal Prasad Tamoli v. Narvadeshwar Mishra and Ritesth Tewari v. State of U.P).” Herein in the instant case, the very settlement made in the year 1944 since is without following the legal procedure is itself illegal and hence order of compensation of issuance of rent receipts is also considered to be incorrect. 19. This Court, after having discussed both the issues and coming to the order passed by learned Single Judge with regard to its effect wherefrom it is evident that although the learned Single Judge has not assigned any reason regarding the issue of applicability of Section 27 of the Act, 1908 so far it relates to the land settled in the year 1944 and therefore, the same was taken as a ground which we have already dealt with above and taking the same along with the reason assigned by learned Single Judge regarding the claim based upon the danpatra which according to learned Single Judge cannot be said to be proper settlement due to non-observance of the condition stipulated under Section 14 of the Act, 1954 coupled with the fact that the order said to have been passed under Section 11 and 14 being command order, which cannot be and hence this Court based upon the aforesaid reason is of the considered view the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge requires no interference. 20. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. 21. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of. I Agree. (Subhash Chand, J.)