Full Judgment Text
‘ REPORTABLE’
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2575 OF 2001
JANAM SINGH KUDADA & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
R. F. NARIMAN, J.
After hearing learned counsel on behalf of the
appellants for some time, and after having gone through the
relevant provisions of the Constitution of India, the
Wilkinson Rules and the Full Bench Judgment in ‘ Mora Ho v.
State of Bihar and Others’ reported as AIR 2000 Patna 101,
we are of the view that it may not be necessary to go into
the applicability and/or validity of the Wilkinson’s Rules
in this matter for two reasons.
First and foremost, as is correctly pointed out by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants/defendants in the Suit, what was claimed in the
Suit was only half the Suit property and not the entirety of
the property as follows:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
NATARAJAN
Date: 2019.08.31
12:26:00 IST
Reason:
Paragraph 3 of the plaint states “Sura Ho died
issueless and the lines of the parties became entitled to
1
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2575 OF 2001
half and half of these lands”. This was the suit property
over which the plaintiffs claimed a declaration that they
are rightful owners and for confirmation of their
possession, and consequentially, correction of the entry
made in the Record of Rights of 1963.
Despite this being the claim in the plaint, by an
order dated 30.03.1977, the Additional Deputy Commissioner,
Singhbhum, decreed the Suit in accordance with the award of
the majority members of the Panchayat, and held as follows:
“I therefore come to the conclusion that the
suit lands have been wrongly recorded in the names of
the defendants during the recent survey and
settlement operation. The survey authorities have
not considered the documents which were in favour of
the plaintiffs.
When the plaintiffs come in possession of the
suit lands after the demarcation on 5.10.20 by Kolai
Ho, Amin no actions were taken by the defendant no. 1
and the father of defendant no. 2 to go in appeal
against the demarcation. They also did not go in
appeal against the orders of mutation, of correction
of Zamanbandi passed in case no. 1139/20-21.
Therefore whatever orders have been passed in Civil
case no. 166-13, 893-14-15, 670/20-21 and 1139/20-21
still hold good because they have not been either set
aside or modified by any competent court. After the
plaintiffs came in possession of the suit lands in
the year 1921 thereafter there has been no evidence
on record to show that the plaintiffs were ever
dispossessed by the defendant no. 1 and defendant no.
2 or his father. It is therefore presumed that the
plaintiffs are still continuing in possession of the
suit land.
There is definite documentary evidences is in
favour of the plaintiffs to prove their right title
and interest over the suit lands. There is also
evidence that they are in possession of the suit
lands since 1921. Under the circumstances discussed
above, the award of the two punches namely Harish
Chandra Deogam and Dogor Deogam is accepted and for
the reasons stated above the award of the minority
punch is set aside because he has relied more upon
2
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2575 OF 2001
the papers and documents which are of lessor value.
In the result the suit of the plaintiffs is
decreed in their favour. They have a valid right,
title and interest over the suit lands and before
their possession over the suit land is confirmed. It
is also hereby declared that the entries in the names
of the defendants in respect of the such lands in
respect of rights finally published in the year 1963
is wrong and erroneous.”
By an order dated 06.08.1979, the appellate authority
viz., the Commissioner, dismissed the appeal filed by the
appellants by holding:
“In the course of hearing, the learned lawyer for the
appellants argued that the learned Additional Deputy
Commissioner went beyond the award of the majority
punches to confirm the possession of the respondents
over the suit land which was wrong as the decree must
be in conformity with the award and anything beyond it
is ultra-virus. He also questioned the award of the
majority punches.
Under Wilkinson’s rules the acceptance of the
award of the majority punches is mandatory unless the
charges of corruption have been proved or unless the
award is contrary to the custom of the Hos. In the
present case neither has been done. Therefore, that
part of the Additional Deputy Commissioner’s order
which is in conformity with the award of the majority
punches is up held. He has also given reasons why he
held erroneous the entries in the records prepared
during the recent survey as mentioned above, and has
concluded that the respondent have been in possession
of the land since 1921.
I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with
the order. The appeal is dismissed.”
The learned Single Judge, by his judgment dated
04.02.2000, dismissed the writ petition filed by the
appellants herein, holding as follows:
“On consideration of the reliefs claimed, I do
not find that the cognizance taken of the suit by the
respondents no. 2 and 3 was without jurisdiction when
the title has been clouded between the parties on
3
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2575 OF 2001
wrong entry in the record of rights. Moreover, the
party has got every right to go for a suit for
declaration of title and confirmation of possession.
Thus on this score, there is no force in the writ
petition.
The second point urged by Mr. Khatri is that
the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation as Munda
Jamabandi prepared in the year 1918 and also in 1963
cannot be challenged in the year 1970 when the same
is totally barred by limitation as contemplated under
Rule 3 of the Rules. Suit had been filed for
declaration of right, title and interest over the
suit land and the cause of action for the suit was
due to trouble being created by the defendants as
there was wrong entry in the record of rights. It
appears that the record of rights were definitely
wrongly prepared giving go-by to the decision arrived
at earlier by the Kolhan Superintendent already
mentioned above and the tile and possession of the
plaintiffs had already been established long back in
the year 1914-15, but the revenue records were not
corrected accordingly and this have a handle to the
defendants to create trouble about the possession and
title of the plaintiffs and then the plaintiffs have
no other alternative but to come in the suit. I do
not find that in the circumstances of the case, Rule
3 of the Wilkinson’s Rule would create a bar in
coming up for declaration of the title over the suit
land. Moreover, it is an established principle of
law that majority of the award should be accepted
unless it can be shown that the same suffers from the
procedural defect as contemplated under Rule 20 of
the Wilkinson’s Rules or that the same is devoid of
consideration of the customs prevailing amongst
troubles. There was no plea of misconduct against
the majority members who gave their award in favour
of the plaintiffs. This aspect has been considered
when objection was raised against the award by both
the courts below and came to the concurrent findings.
There is no scope of this court to interfere with
such concurrent findings unless the same suffers from
jurisdictional error or error apparent on the face of
it. It appears from the perusal of both the
judgments as contained in Annexures 4 and 5 that both
the respondents no. 3 and 2 had taken much pain and
gone in depth into the cases of the parties and the
decision arrived at by the majority award and then
accepted the award rejecting the objections raised
from the side of the petitioners. Thus, the points
raised in this writ petition have got no force.
In the result, this writ petition is
4
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2575 OF 2001
dismissed, but in the facts and circumstances of the
case, no order as to costs.”
An appeal filed from this order was dismissed by the
Division Bench vide impugned order dated 27.07.2000 holding
as follows:
“We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and
perused the order under challenge. The findings
recorded by the learned single judge are based upon
correct appraisal of evidence on record and as such,
we are not inclined to interfere with the same.
Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.
In view of the fact that it is only half the property
which went to the plaintiffs, as referred to in paragraph 3
of the plaint, that was the subject matter of the Suit, the
decree will have to be set aside to the extent that it
awards anything beyond this.
Also, we have been taken through the Bihar Kolhan
Civil Justice (Regulating and Validating) Act, 1978.
Section 2 states as follows:
“2. Regulation and Validation of certain past action
in the Kolhan with the exception of Chaibassa
Municipality in the Sadar Subdivision of the District
of Singhbhum.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained
in any other law for the time being in force any
judgment, decree or order of any Court, the officers
mentioned in Column 1 of the Schedule shall, in regard
to the trial of civil suits and proceedings arising
within the local limits of the Kolhan with the
exception of the areas comprised within the
Municipality of Chaibassa in the Sadar Sub-division of
the District of Singhbhum and hearing of appeals or
petitions for review or revision arising therefrom, be
deemed to have validly exercised the powers which the
officers, mentioned in the corresponding entries in
Column 2 thereof exercised under the Wilkinson’s rule
and under Regulation XIII of 1838, and no order,
5
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2575 OF 2001
judgment or decree passed by them shall be deemed to
be invalid or shall be called in question in any Court
or proceeding whatsoever merely on the ground that
they were not so empowered.
(2) Where any judgment, decree or order in any appeal
or proceeding has been set aside by any Court merely
on the ground that the said officer had no power or
authority to Act under the said Rule, the Court which
set aside the judgment, decree or order shall on an
application made to it within six months from the date
of the commencement of this Act shall set aside its
previous order and shall proceed to hear the suit,
appeal or proceeding again and in case there has been
any order for remand on such ground all subsequent
proceedings after the remand shall be deemed to have
terminated.”
In view of this section as well, which admittedly has
not been challenged by the appellants before us, it is
difficult at this point of time to set aside the concurrent
judgments which were made on the basis of application of
Wilkinson’s Rules.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
…………………………………………………………………….., J.
[ R. F. NARIMAN ]
…………………………………………………………………….., J.
[ R. SUBHASH REDDY ]
…………………………………………………………………….., J.
[ SURYA KANT ]
New Delhi;
August 27, 2019.
6
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2575 OF 2001
ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.5 SECTION XVII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No. 2575/2001
JANAM SINGH KUDADA & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. Respondent(s)
[ TO GO BEFORE THREE HON'BLE JUDGES ]
Date : 27-08-2019 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
For Appellant(s)
Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, AOR
For Respondent(s)
Ms. Nandini Sen, Adv.
Mr. Deba Prasad Mukherjee, AOR
Mr. Jayesh Gaurav, Adv.
Mr. Gopal Prasad, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the signed
reportable judgment.
(NIDHI AHUJA) (R.S. NARAYANAN)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
[Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file.]
7