Sushil Harkauli, J. - (1.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length. The petitioners encroached certain land of the private respondent. Apparently the private respondent moved an application for eviction of the petitioners and return of possession. Although unfortunately no provision of law is mentioned in the application or in the orders, but Section 42 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949, is one such provision which permits eviction and restoration of possession of encroached agricultural land. The phrase "agricultural land" as used in the section does not appear to be defined. In the case of Jhagru mahto v. Ravan Hansda, 1972 BLJR xxvii (Sum) it has been held that in absence of definition any land on which any agricultural process, and any land fit for cultivation or land required for persons or animals connected with agricultural operation usually carried on in the village, can be termed as "agricultural land".
(2.) The fact that after encroaching upon the land the petitioners may have raised construction thereon will not change the nature of land to non-agricultural so as to oust the jurisdiction of the authorities under Section 42. No person can oust the jurisdiction of law by his own misconduct.
(3.) The reliance placed by the petitioner upon the second proviso to Section 20 (5) of the Act is misplaced, as that provision applies for payment of compensation in lieu of return or restoration of the land between "transferor" and "transferee". Thus, the said provision will apply where land has been taken by way of a transfer which would be otherwise valid in law but for the prohibition contained in the Act. The said provision has no application to an act of rank trespass or forcible encroachment.;