SURA KUDADA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition after admission had been stayed till the disposal of C.W.J.C. No. 198 of 1979 (R) wherein constitutional validity of the Wilkinsons Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) have been challenged. Recently, the Full Bench had disposed of the reference made with regard to the constitutional validity of the rules. In the above -mentioned writ petition, Hon ble three Single Judge had written three judgments in the said Full Bench and the conscientious of the decision arrived at is that the Wilkinsons Rules shall continue to be followed in the administration of Civil Justice of Kolhan area till suitable Rules/Regulations in place of those Rules have been framed by the Government. Till date no such enactment or suitable Rules/Regulations have been framed by the State Government and hence, the Wilkinsons Rules in the Kolhan area in the administration of Civil justice is still in vogue.

(2.) IN the present writ petition, the judgment and order passed by respondent No. 2 i.e. the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, in Kolhan Title Appeal No. 90 of 1977 and the judgment and order dated 30.3.1977 passed by respondent No. 3 i.e. the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum at Chaibasa in K.T. Suit No. 56 of 1970, copies of which are annexed as Annexures 5 and 4 respectively have been challenged.

(3.) THE case in brief is that the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 filed K.T. Suit No. 56 of 1970 before the respondent No. 3 for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and in the alternative if found dispossessed for delivery of Khas possession and also for correction of Khatian parcha. The case of the plaintiffs in that suit was that originally the suit property, details of which are described in the Schedule of the plaint, belonged to one Sura Ho, the common ancestor of both the parties. The genealogy had been given in Schedule A of the plaint. When Sura Ho died issueless, the predecessors of the plaintiffs and the defendants became entitled to half and half share of the property belonging to Sura Ho as agnates of the original ancestor Sura Ho. According to the plaintiffs, the suit lands were recorded in the names of Chota Dogor Ho and Kaira Ho, during the course of Tucky Settlement, but then the litigation started between the parties i.e. amongst the predecessor of the plaintiffs and the defendants and such dispute once even went to the Commissioner who referred the matter to the Kolhan Superintendent for final adjudication. Such dispute was decided by the Kolhan Superintendent finally between the father of the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1 in Case No. 893 of 1914 -15 and such order was also implemented through demarcation in case No. 10 of 1920 -21. According to the plaintiffs, after that the father of the plaintiff Bara Do Ho along with his brother Marki Ho came in possession of the suit land and they remained in such till their death and then the plaintiffs came in possession and remained so till the date of filing of the suit. The Jamabandi in the Revenue Department was corrected vide Case No. 1139 of 1920 -21 under the orders of Mr. W.G. Kelly, the then Kolhan Superintendent but the Munda Jamabandi was not corrected as per the decision arrived at by the Kolhan Superintendent in Case No. 893 of 1914 -15. Then several cases errupted between the parties on criminal side and till 1955 such cases went on going between the parties bringing allegations against each other. In some cases, plaintiffs were accused, in some cases, they were complainants and similarly some of the defendants were accused in some cases and in some cases they were informants. All those cases were disposed of/ended in acquittal of either of the parties and some cases were compromised. When the plaintiffs could feel that until and unless the Munda Jamabandi is corrected such dispute would go on then they approached the Kolhan Superintendent in Anchal Case No. 23 of 1958 -59 for correction of Munda Jamabandi in terms of the orders passed in case No. 893. of 1914 -15 and also in Mutation Case No. 1139 of 1920 -21 but the Kolhan Superintendent rejected the petition, then the plaintiffs filed appeal before the L.R.D.C., Chaibasa. The appeal was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 11 of 1959. The L.R.D.C. after hearing the parties held that the order of partition of Kolhan Superintendent in Case No. 893 of 1914. -15 and Mutation Case No. 1139 of 1920 -21 would prevail and the Munda Jamabandi should be corrected accordingly. Against this order of L.R.D.C., the opposite party preferred a revision case before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum which was registered as Revision Case No. 14 of 1960 -61. As the Settlement operation was going on at that period, the Additional Deputy Commissioner did not like to give any finding in the revenue case and dropped the same. According to the plaintiffs, by such dropping, practically the order passed by the L.R.D.C. in Misc. Appeal No. 11 of 1959 remained valid, unaltered or modified. 3 -A. The grievance of the plaintiffs was that during the operation of settlement, the authorities again committed mistake without considering the previous orders passed by the Kolhan Superintendent, as mentioned above, recorded the names as it was in Tucky settlement which was directly in contravention of the orders passed earlier. The plaintiffs preferred an objection under Sec. 83 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 but their prayer was rejected on technical ground. Then, finding no other alternative, the plaintiffs had to file a suit as mentioned above because such wrong entry in the record of rights in the recent suivey created confusion and cloud over the title of the plaintiffs, hence, with the relief claimed, as already mentioned above, Kolhan Title Suit No. 56 of 1970 was filed.