GANGARAM MUNDA Vs. B B SHRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order dated the 16th December, 1964, passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner in Title Suit No. 15 of 1955 and the order dated the 20th September, 1966, passed by the Commissioner of the Chota Nagpur Division in Title Appeal No. 5 of 1963 dismissing the appeal arising out of the said suit relating to the Kolhan area. Opposite parties 3 and 4 filed the suit in the court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum, against the petitioner for recovery of khas possession of the suit land after declaration of their title thereto. According to the law prevalent in the Kolhan area, certain panches were appointed by the trial court, and the suit was decreed on the basis of the award submitted by them, after the objections of the petitioner thereto. The judgment and decree of the trial court were upheld by the appellate court.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the State, Mr. Sarwar Ali, has appeared for opposite parties 1 and 2, viz., the Commissioner of the Chota Nagpur Division and the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum. Of the remaining opposite parties, opposite parties 3 and 4 who instituted the title suit, have appeared.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the judgments of the courts below on three grounds, viz., (1) the Additional Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to decide the suit; (2) the panches did not submit to the court the evidence recorded by them in support of their award, even though they had been directed by the order dated 9-6-64 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner to produce the same and, therefore, the court was not competent to act on the award without considering this evidence; and (3) the courts did not consider the allegation of the petitioner that the panches were guilty of corruption and also of legal misconduct, inasmuch as they did not record the evidence of the witnesses of the petitioner and further that the petitioner had enmity with Debendra Manki, one of the panches, and the other two Mankis or panches had threatened and scolded the petitioner.