(1) A holding may be sub-divided and the rent thereof distributed with the consent of the landlord and the village headman or mulraiyat, if any.
(2) When a holding has been the subject of partition or sub-division by an order of a Court or otherwise and if the parties to the partition are unable to distribute the rent of the holding by agreement amongst themselves and with the consent of the landlord and the village headman or mulraiyat, if any, any of the parties may apply to the Deputy Commissioner to distribute the rent of the holding.
(3) (a) On receipt of such an application, the Deputy Commissioner shall serve on each of the person interested in the application, other than the applicant, a notice of the date on which he intends to hear the application.
Explanation. – For the purposes of this clause, the landlord and the village headman or mulraiyat, if any, shall be deemed to be persons interested in the application.
(b) After serving the notice required by clause (a) and hearing the parities and holding such enquiry as he thinks fit, the Deputy Commissioner.
1. Ins, by kSec. 2 of the Santal Parganas (Supplementary Proivisons) Amendment Act, 1951 (Bihar Act 11 of 1951), for the original proviso.
Shall distribute the rent of the holding calculated on the basisi of settlement rate of rent, and his decision shall be final.
(4) The order of the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (3) shall take effect from such date as the Deputy Commissioner may specify in his order.
(5) The Deputy Commissioner shall have power to award cost to any party to any proceeding under this section, and any sum ordered to be paid as cost shall be recoverable from the party by whom it is payable as a public demand payable to the Deputy Commissioner.
(6) The Deputy Commissioner shall pay any sum recovered as cost by him under sub-section (5) to the party to whom such costs are payable.
Provided, firstly, that in no case shall such holding be sub-divided if the rent of any portion of the holding will be less than three rupees.
Secondly, that the private holding of the village headman pledged as security shall in no case be split up if his share together with the official, if any, will not be adequate security for the village rent. And Thirdly, that any sub-division or partition of the holding or the distribution of its rent shall not have the effect of splitting up the joint liability of faiyats for the payment of the rent of the holding as it stood prior to the sub-division or partition.
(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 writt3en 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 garnt in respect of him lands not exceeding one fhalf 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.
1[ 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.
2[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.
1[(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 2[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 amont of any compensation for improvements effected to land which the Deputy, Commissioner may deem fair and equitable] 1[Explanation.- For the purpose of this section a financial institution means,- i. a banking company as defined in the Banking regulation Act 1949, ii. the State Bank of India constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, iii. a subsidiary Bank as defined in the State Bank of India) Subsidiary Bank) Act, 1959, iv. a corresponding new bank constituted under the banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, v. Agricultural Refinance Corporation constituted under the Agricultural Refinance Corporation Act, 1963, vi. the Agro- Industries Corporation, vii. the Agricultural Finance Corporation Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and viii. any other institution as may be notified in this behalf as a financial institution by the State Government in the Official Gazette.]
COMMENTS Section 20- Applicability of – Agricultural land changed to Basauri land- Became transerable- Such transfer do not fall within the mischief of Section 20 of the Act. [ Dhena Hansda and Ors. V. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2003(3) JCR 230(jhr)] Section 20- Eviction application- Eviction application-Rejected-Appeal against-Order became Revision against-Allowed-Evocation application stand rejected-Order became final and conclusive-Land acquisition took place more than 60 years prior to the filing of eviction application-Transfer thereafter took place in 1938- Nature of land changed as basauri land-Not open for the settlement officer to declare the acquisition of land illegal merely as provision of Section 53 of the S.P.T. Act,1949 has been declared unconstitutional-Acquisition of land in year 1937-38 is valid. [Dhena Hansda and Ors. V. State of Jharkhand and Ors, 2003(3) JCR 130 (Jhr].
Section 20 – Whether the Revenue Court has jurisdiction to evict a person who had come in possession of the land on the basis of a compromise decree of the civil court if that compromise was collusive. It is held, that a transferee cannot perfect his title on the basis of collusive decree of a civil Court. Revenue Court has jurisdiction to evict the person from the land which is obtained by fraud or collusion. [Rajo Mian v. Puram Mian, 1987 BLJR 91].
Section 20(1), 20(2) and 20(5) as amended by the Bihar Scheduled Areas Regulation, 1969 (Bihar Regulation 1 of 1969), State List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution is not volatile of being repugnant to the provisions of Limitation Act. The provisions do not ultra virus of the Articles 13,14,19(1) (f) and 31 of the Constitution as being the Section 42 of the Act is a legislatioin in respect of Entry No. 21 lf List II. [Bhauri Lal Jain v. Sub-Divisiional Officer, 1972 PLJR 415 (FB) : AIR 1973 Pat1].
Section 20(5) as amended by Bihar Scheduled Areas Regulation, 1971 Pat 1].
Regulation 1 of 1972)- Compromise decree obtained in a suit in contra-venation of the Acts comes under the ambit of sub-section (5) of Section 20 of the Act. Revenue authorities has jurisdiction to evict the person from the land which is a transfer by the fraudulent medhod. [Ram Narain Sahv. State of Bihar, 1976 BLJR 15].
Section 20- Before the enactment of Scheduled Area Regulation, 1969, Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to evict a transferee from the land who has perfected his right through continuous possession of 12 years but now under Section 20(5) the Deputy Commissioner has wide discretion to evict such transferee. [Kheyali Bhaiya v. Bisan Mahton, 1957 BLJR 821].
Sections 20 (5) and 42- There is a distinction between Section 20(5) land Section 42-Original raiyat will be put in possession under Section 20)5) by the competent authority. But under Section 42 no such power is given to the authority. [Deonarain Singh v.
Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, 1985 BLJR 185:
1985 PL JR 1 (FB)].
Sections 20(1), 20(5) and 42- Section 20(1) of the Act runs parallel to the scheme of earlier provisions of Section 27(1) of the Regulation, 1872. Therefore the authorities have no occasion to invoke the provisions of Section 20(1) or Section 20(5) of the Act read with Section 42 thereof in connection of this later transaction of the sale dated 26th June, 1950. [Deonarayan Singh v. Commissioner, Bhagalpur, 1997 (2) BL JR 1352: 1998 (2) P L J R (SC) 3].
Section 20- Family partition of the family property cannot hit by Section 20 of the Santal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 and Section 27 of the Santall Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872. Mutation order passed by the Circle Officer cannot be cancelled without giving opportunity of being heard.
[Ramjiban Sahah v. State of Bihar, 1978 B L J 337].
Section 20- In contravention of the provisions of Regulation III of 1872 settlement was done, the person is coming in continuous possession may acquire title by adverse possession.
Order of eviction cannot be passed against the person who is coming in possession prior to the coming into force of this Act. [Godo Mahto v. State of Bihar, 1980 BL J 72].
Sections 20- Te provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 20 of the Act are prospective in operation.
The provision did not bar acquisition of title by adverse possession. The person came in possession through settlement in contravention of provision of Section 27 of Regulation iii of 1872, by remaining in possession over the land more than twelve years before the application of eviction was filed.
[Most. Pairia v. Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, 1978 B L J 272].
Sections 20- The land belongs to a female cannot claim the land inheritance. Land will revert to the heirs of her father. [Krishna Prasad Sharma v. State of Bihar, 1998 (3) P L J R 179].
Sections 20- Occupancy right can be acquired by a person by prescriptor of time on the expiry of said period. [Suryabansh Upadhyay v. Awdhesh Choudhary, 1999 (2) P L J R 173].
Sections 20- Limitation from 12 years to 30 years is only for the members of the non-tribal where there is a case between tribal to tribal, the limitatior is twelve years. [Dhani Manjhi v.
Ranga Manjhi, 1999 (1) PL J R 605] Sections 20 and 42- The order passed by the Revenue Authorities without deciding the disputed points and without giving opportunity to the parties concerned is bad in law. The revenue authorities are bound to decide the points on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. [Ram Lal Tatwa v. State of Bihar, 2000(1) P L J R 4888 (Pat)].
Sections 20 and 42- When the SDO himself was drawing with conclusion on the order of the dismissal for default in the title eviction suit he has committed an error without giving opportunity of hearing to either parties and without deciding the whole matter on the basis of the petition filed under Section 20 by the respondent No. 5 and reply to the show-cause given by the petitioner. The whole process by which the revenue authorities had decided the disputed point of fact and law is unwarranted and the same cannot be sustained. [Ram Lal Tatwa v.
State of Bihar, 2000 (1) P L J R 488 (Pat)].
Sections 20(5) and 42- Under Section 20(5) of S P T Act matter must be considered under proviso (ii) of sub-section (5) where there is substantial structure claimed to constructed by the party over the land in question price to coming into force of the Bihar Scheduled Area Regulation, 1969. [Nandgope Bhadra v. State of Bihar, 2000
(3) B L J 738 (Pat)].
Section 42 and 20 (5)- The case of the petitioner is that they have go settlement of land in question under the provision of Section 20 of the Act and they have proved before the authority concern that they are in possession for more than 12 year prior to the coming into force of the Act, 1949 the status petitioner in that view of the matter must be held to be trespasser. The expression “any fraudulent method” also includes a collusive compromise decree [Banshidhar Pal v. State of Bihar, 2000 (1) PL J R 994 : 2000 (2) B L J 1295 (Pat)].
Section 20 (5)- Transfer made even prior to coming into force of the Scheduled Area Regulation. [Amrendra Nath Dutta v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 Pat 151: 1983 B L J R 609: 1983 BLT (Rep) 111: 1983 B B C J 254].
Section 20(5)- Forcible dispossession will come under the purview of Schedule Area Regulation,
1969. The word transfer does not mean exactly the Definition given under Transfer of Property Act. Infact transfer means possession passes from one person to another person as a physical fact. [Pandey Oraon v. Ram Chandra Sahu, A I R 1992 SC 195].
Section20- Title by adverse possession cannot be acquired by a person after the enactment iof S P T Act,
1949. Any such transfer shall be held in contravention of the Act. [Bhouri Lal Jain v. S D O, 1972 P L J R 415 (FB): A I R 1973 Pat 1].
Section 20- A purchaser cannot perfect his title by adverse possession after coming into force of S P T Act, 1949. Sub Divisional Officer has jurisdiction to ignore the compromise decreed passed by the Civil Court. [Raja Miyan v. Puran Miyan, 1986 P L J R 1013].
Section 20(5)- Section 71- of the CNT Act, 1908 is similar to sub-section (5) of Section 20 of S P T Act,
1949. A member of the Scheduled Tribe can invoke the jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner to restore his land which is transferred in contravention of the Act or by fraudulent method. [Ram Chandra Sahu v. Commissioner, 1991 (1) P L J R 16 (F B) : 1990 (2) B L J R 929].
Section 20(5) – The provision of Scheduled Are Regulation is beneficial in nature and legislative intension is to extend protection to class of citizen who are not imposition to keep their property themselves in absence of protection, the Court has to give liberal construction to the protective mechanism which would work out the protection and enable the spare of protection to be effective than limit the scope. [Pandey oraon v. Ram Chandra Sahu, A I R 1992 S C 195].
Sections 20(1), 20(2) and Section 20(5) as amended by Scheduled Are Regulation, 1969 and Section 42- Whether the provisions arfe ultra vires of Articles 13, 14, 19 (1) (f) and 31 of the Constitution. It is held that Section 42 of the Act is a legislation in respect of Entry 21, List 11- State list of several schedule of the Constitution and not violative of being repugnant the provisions of Limitation Act. A central legislation delaling with acquisition of right by adverse possession Section 20
(5) of the? Act is a valid piece of legislation and is not ultra vires the Constitutional provision. [Bhauri Lal Jain v. Sub-Divisional Officer of Jamtara, 1972 P L J R 415 : A I R 1973 Pat 1: 1972 B L J R 897 : I L R ( 1972) 51 Pat 533 (F B)].
Section 20- Bar to transfer raiyats rights- The suit, for the relief sought for is not maintainable in view of the bar created under Section 20 of the Act provided, of course the conditions, in terms of provisions of the Act and fulfilled. As the issue regarding maintainability of the suit has not been framed and, as such, the Court below had no occasion to deal with the question in hand. [Mithu Tanti v.Raghunath Prasad Tanti, 1996 (1) PL J R 132 (Pat)].
Section 20- Bar under- Statutory- Transfer of land within the municipal area where no record of rights have been prepared- Requirement of an inquiry as to whether the land is transferable or not-Demand of verification report of the Circle Officer in a prescribed format before the Registrar for the registration of deeds- Demand is for the purpose of giving effect to the statutory bar created under the provisions of the Act-No reason to interfere with such requirement/demand.
[Shyam Sunder Barnwal v. State of Jharkhand and others, 2004 (3) Sections 20, 3 and 59- Conversion of Water channels and water reservoirs-Water channels and water reservoirs for irrigation cannot be Converted to other purposes.
Revenue authorities having no jurisdiction to decide title of the land land under Section 35. If such conversion is attempted the affected railways or the State may initiate appropriate legal proceedings. Respondent No. 2 evidently had no jurisdiction to decide a complicated question of title while exercising his jurisdiction under Section 35 of the said Act. The respondents have contended that no sale of a tenk can be made by a raiyat. If the tank is converted for the use of any other purpose or brought under cultivation, it would be open to the affected raiyats or the State to imitate an appropriate legal action against the petitioner. It is further made clear that the disputed question of title of the petitioners in respect of the aforementioned tank may be decided in an appropriate proceeding. [Ansar Ali v. State of Bihar, 1996, (2) P L J R 656 : (1) B L J 751 (Pat)].
Section 20(5)- The word “transfer” Meaning thereof- Held, the act of forcible dispassion of a raiyat belonging to Schedule Tribe by another person is not a transfer in violation of provisions of the Act-In such cases provision of Scheduled Area Regulation is not applicable- 1987 BL T ( Rep) 177 and 1988 BLT (Rep) 15 followed, Jalpa Tudu’s Case 1981 B B C J 296.- Under Section 71-A of the C N T Act the conditions precedent for invoking the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under the said Act is transfer of land belonging to a member of the Scheduled Triber kin Contravention to the provisions of Section 46 or any other provisions of Act or by any fraudulent method. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner may direct for restoration of the land in question only in the event if it is held that transfer has taken place in violation of the provision of the said Act or by any fraudulent method. When, if a wider meaning is assigned to the word ‘transfer’ forcibly dispossession of raiyat by another person cannot be any stretch of imagination be held to be a transfer. Further, from a bare perusal of Section 71-A of the Act, it will be evident that transfer connotes an act on the part of the raiyat belonging to the member of the Scheduled Tribe himself in favour of another person.
Therefore, an act of forcible dispossession of raiyat belonging to Scheduled Tribe by another person, being not a transfer in violation of the said Act, the provision of Section 71-A thereof cannot be said to have any application whatsoever.
The observation of the Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench) is overruled by Supreme Court in the Case of Pandey Oraon v. Ram Chandra Sahu reported in A I R 1992 S C 195, Supreme Court, now has defined the word “Transfer’ “ in the following manner- “In the absence of definition of transfer and considering the situation in which exercise of jurisdiction contemplated, it would not be proper to confine the meaning of transfer under the Transfer of Property Act or a situation where transfer has a statutory definition. What exactly is contemplated, in the provision is where possession has passed from one to another and as a physical fact the member of the Scheduled Tribe who is entitled to hold possession and a non-member has come into possession would be covered by transfer and a situation of that type would amenable to exercise of jurisdiction within the ambit of Section 71-A of the CNT Act.
[Ram Chandra Salhu v.
Commissioner, South Chotanagpur, Ranchi, 1990(2) BLJR 929:1991(1) PLJR 17(FB)].
Section 20(5) (As amended by Bihar Regulation 1 of 1969) – Forcible Dispossession from the land is not transfer—It is not the case of transfer by fraudulent means-Held-Section 20(5) of the Act does not attract. The observation of the Patna Hight Court is overruled by Supreme Court in the Case of Pandey Oraon v. Ram Chandra Sahu, repoted in AIR 1992 SC 195. [ Jalpa tandu v. Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division, 1981 BLJR 473:1981 BBC] 296:1981 BLJ 499]
21. Transfer of raiyati land by bhugut-bandha or complete usufructuary mortagage by a non-aboriginal raiyat and its limits- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 20, the 1 [State] Government may by notification in this behalf published in the official Gazette, permit non-aboriginal raiyats, either of the whole of the Santhal Parganas or such protion of it as may be considered desirable, to transfer with effect from such date as may be notified, their rights in their holding up to the extent of one fourth of their paddy and first class bari lands by bhugut-bandha or complete usufructuary mortagage to,-
(i) a land mortgage bank duly established by the 2 [State] Government, or
(ii) a grain goal recognised by the Deputy Commissioner, or
(iii) a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935(Bihar and Orissa Act VI of 1935), or
(iv) a raiyat of the santal Parganas :
Provided that,-
(a) no such transfer shall be recognised as valid unless it has been made by means of a registered deed and reported in the prescribed manner by the transferor and transferee to the Deputy Commissioner and to the landlord within one month of the registration of the deed,
(b) no such transfer shall be made for a period exceeding six years and, on the expiry of the period of transfer, no further transfer of any of the lands of the transferor raiyat shall be permissible for a period of six years.
(2) At the time of reporting the transfer to the Deputy Commissioner as required under clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1), the transferee shall deposit a fee of five rupees together with a written notice in the prescribed form in the office of the Deputy Commissioner to cover the cost of process and of re-delivery of possession to the transferor raiyat or his heir on the expiry of the period for which he has transferred his land in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) and no such transfer shall be deemed to be valid unless such fee has been deposited within one month of the registration of the deed
(3) The transferee shall be liable to pay the rent of the land and shall be liable to immediate evocation and the cancellation of his mortgage on failure to do so. The rent to be paid by the transferee shall be at the settlement rate for the area and class of land transferred.
(4) On expiry of the period of mortagage, the Deputy Commissioner shall of his own motion cause a notice to be served on the parties to the transaction that the period of the mortagage has terminated and shall proceed to evict the transferee and deliver possession to the transferor raiyat.
(5) Any transfer of land made otherwise than under the provisions of the foregoing sub-section shall be deemed to be transfer made in contravention of sub-section (1) of Section 20.
(6) Any mortagagee found in possession of any land belonging to a raiyat after the expiry of the period of such mortagage shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to five hundred rupees and in the case of a continuing offence, to a further fine not exceeding ten rupees for each day during which the offence continues.
COMMENT Section 21 (1) (b).- No further transfer of the land by transferor raiyat is permissible for a period of six years, on the expiry of the period of first transfer. If it is not forrlowed the transferees will be able to defeat the very object of the proviso. [Surya Gon v. Sub-divisional Officer, Jamtara, 1972 PLJR 632:AIR 1973 Pat 255:1973 BLJR 386 (Pat) (DB)].