Motai Ho Banra And Ors. Vs Comss.S.Chotanagpur Div.Ranchi

Goira Ho (Banra) s/o late Sidiu Ho (Banra) All residents of village Burujol, P.O. Nakahasa P.S. Chaibasa Muffasil, Dist. Singhbhum West … … Petitioners

¶13

Versus

¶14

Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi

¶15

Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum West, Chaibasa

¶16

Special Land Acquisition Officer, Chaliyama Camp, Chaibasa

¶17

Kalyan Ho (Banra) (died and substituted) 4(a) Kanuram Banra

¶18

4(b) Sangram Singh Banra

¶19

4(c) Gono Banra

¶20

All sons of late Kalyan Banra

¶21

Gono Ho (Banra) Both sons of late Kanu Ho (Banra) r/o village Burujol, P.O. Nakahasa, P.S. Chaibasa Muffasil Dist. Singhbhum West

¶22

Gumda Ho (Banra) s/o late Sidui Ho

¶23

Serega Ho (banra) s/o late Dibi Ho

¶24

Markandey Ho (banra) s/o late Dibi Ho

¶25

Sidiu Ho (Banra)

¶26

10.Lakhan Ho (Banra) Both sons of late Markandey Ho

¶27

11.Bura Ho (Banra)

¶28

12.Sadhucharan Ho (Banra) Both sons of late Baju Ho

¶29

13.Chokro Ho (Banra) s/o late Mukru Ho All residents of village Bara Moudi, P.O. Barkundia, P.O. Chaibasa, Muffasil, Dist. Singhbhum West

¶30

… … … Proforma Respondents

¶31

¶32

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶33

¶34

For the Petitioners : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate : Mr. Arpit Khandelwal, Advocate : Mr. Kumar Rahul, Advocate : Mr. Rishav Raj, Advocate : Mr. Harshit Ranjan Prasad, Advocate For the Resp. (4 & 5) : Mr. R.P. Gupta, Advocate

¶35

( 2026:JHHC:2975 )

¶36

For the Resp.-State : Mr. Vineet Prakash, A.C. to S.C. IV ---

¶37

33 /03.02.2026 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶38

2. This petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶39

a. To declare that the order passed in Kolhan T.S.No. 28/66 dated 26.05.71 (Annexure-4) under the Wilkinson Rule is valid by operation of Bihar Kolhan Civil Justice (Regulating & Validating) Act, 1978;

¶40

b. To quash the order dated 20.02.73 (Annexure-5) issued by Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in Kolhan Title Appeal No. 107/71;

¶41

c. To quash the order dated 12.11.75 (Annexure-7) passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner in Kolhan Title Suit No. 34/73;

¶42

d. To quash the order dated 20.04.88 (Annexure-12) issued by Commissioner South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in Singhbhum Mutation Revision No. 476/95 as the same is void ab initio, illegal, without authority in law and is ultravires to the aforementioned validating Act, 1966 and 1978 (Annexure-9) and violative of Article 14 and 311A of the Constitution of India and the right to inherit the properties by the agnates under the tribal customs as approved by the apex court,

¶43

e. for issuance of appropriate writ of prohibition upon respondent no. 3 restraining him for fore bearing from making any payment of compensation as the matter is sub-judice before 1^st Additional Dist. Judge, Chaibasa until final adjudication thereof.

¶44

3. During the course of hearing, it transpired that earlier an issue arose as to whether Wilkinson’s Rule is a rule framed under Section (V) of Regulation XIII of 1833, or can be said to be a statutory rule having binding force. The matter was referred to the Full Bench on the

¶45

2

¶46

( 2026:JHHC:2975 )

¶47

ground that the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench reported in AIR 1958 Patna 366 and AIR 1958 Patna 603 require reconsideration. The Full Bench judgment has been rendered vide judgment dated 05.01.2000 reported in 2000 SCC Online Patna passed in C.W.J.C. No. 198 of 1979 (R). It was observed that the validity of Wilkinson's Rules was challenged, from time to time, but upheld by Division Bench of this Court in Dulichand Khirwal v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 Pat 366, Chotanagpur Division, AIR 1958 Pat 603. And the main question raised on behalf of the petitioner was that the Wilkinson's Rules is not a Rule framed under Section v of Regulation XIII of 1833, nor can be said to be a statutory rule having binding force.

¶48

4. Two of the Hon’ble judges had conflicting opinion and the third Hon’ble judge concurred with the finding of one of the two judges. The court held that the Wilkinsons Rule can continue to be followed in the civil justice of Kolhan till suitable rules/regulations are framed and those rules will be framed by the government. The State government was directed to do the needful within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment.

¶49

5. In the present case, some of the orders passed in the suit/appeal filed under Wilkinson’s Rule are under challenge and certain orders passed in mutation proceedings are also under challenge. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners gives the sequence of events as follows: -

¶50

i. One Kolhan Title Suit No. 28 of 1966 was instituted by the ancestors of the plaintiff of the present case which was sent for arbitration and when award dated 24.01.1970 was placed and ultimately the Title Suit was decreed vide judgment dated 26.05.1971 (Annexure-4).

¶51

ii. Against the judgment in a Title Suit, appeal was filed numbered as Kolhan Title Appeal No. 107 of 1971 which was allowed vide judgment dated 20.02.1973 (Annexure-5) on the ground that the date on which the title suit was admitted by the Authority, the authority did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction.

¶52

3

¶53

( 2026:JHHC:2975 )

¶54

iii. The 1^st appellate judgment attained finality and ultimately the plaintiff applied for return of plaint which was directed to be returned vide order dated 21.07.1973 (Annexure-6).

¶55

iv. Upon return of the plaint, another suit was filed numbered as Kolhan Title Suit No. 34 of 1973 which was admitted on 04.12.1973.

¶56

v. In the meantime, the order dated 21.07.1973 returning the plaint was challenged in Kolhan Misc. Appeal No. 96 of 1973 which remained pending.

¶57

vi. However, Kolhan Title Suit No. 34 of 1973 was dismissed on 04.12.1979 (Annexure-8).

¶58

vii. Since Kolhan Misc. Appeal No. 96 of 1973 was pending and the original suit was stayed, therefore the subsequent suit numbered as Kolhan Title Suit No. 34 of 1973 was dismissed on 04.12.1979 (Annexure-8).

¶59

viii. However, ultimately Kolhan Misc. Appeal No. 96 of 1973 was also dismissed on 04.12.1979 and the suit was struck off vide order dated 12.11.1975.

¶60

7. The learned counsel has fairly submitted that once Kolhan Title Appeal No. 96 of 1973 filed against return of the plaint was dismissed, then the Kolhan Title Suit No. 34 of 1973, which was instituted after return of the plaint, ought to have been taken to a logical end. The learned counsel further submits that once Kolhan Misc. Appeal No. 96 of 1973, regarding return of plaint, was dismissed, the Kolhan Title Suit No. 34 of 1973 based on the returned plaint would revive and was required to be decided.

¶61

8. He submits that in the meantime, certain proceedings were also initiated for Mutation and the order of mutation was passed in Mutation Case No. 17 of 1989-90. The application for mutation was dismissed and ultimately an appeal was filed before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chiabasa, which was registered as Mutation Appeal No. 5 of 1990-91. The appeal was dismissed on 14.10.1993 and against the order of dismissal of appeal, one Mutation Revision was filed before Additional deputy Commissioner, Singhbhoom West,

¶62

4

¶63

( 2026:JHHC:2975 )

¶64

Chaibasa numbered as Mutation Revision Case No. 18 of 1993 who allowed the revision vide order dated 27.09.1995 and the order of the Circle Officer dated 18.12.1990 and the order of Land Reform Deputy Collector dated 14.10.1993 was set aside and the Anchal Adhikari Chaibasa was directed to mutate the land on the basis of possession on the ground of nearest agnates of Santi Kui, in favour of the petitioners and proforma respondents. In the meantime, rent receipts were issued and the order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner was challenged before the Commissioner in Mutation Revision No. 476 of 1995. The said authority vide Annexure-12 dated 20.04.1999 recorded that the land reference case arising out of acquisition of land was decided in Land Reference Case No. 16 (14) of 1988 which was challenged in appeal and the same was pending and also observed that the parties would be governed by the judgment to be passed by the appellate court and ultimately the order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum was set aside.

¶65

9. The learned counsel has submitted that once the Title Suit No. 34 of 1973 is taken to a logical end, all the disputes between the contesting parties will also stand decided and therefore it would be suffice if it is observed that Kolhan Title Suit No. 34 of 1973 be decided as per law. The learned counsel has submitted that the order of the Commissioner in Mutation Revision No. 476 of 1995 dated 20.04.1999 be set aside. He has submitted that the 2^nd revision is not maintainable under the provisions of Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973.

¶66

10. The learned counsel for the private respondents has submitted that if the Title Suit No. 34 of 1973 stand revived and is decided as per law, he has no objection. So far as setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner is concerned, he submits that though the 2^nd revision was not maintainable, but at the same time, the Commissioner has set aside the order passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner in exercising revisional jurisdiction. Even the Additional Deputy Commissioner did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the revision. He submits that since the order of the Additional Deputy

¶67

5

¶68

( 2026:JHHC:2975 )

¶69

Commissioner would revive, which itself is an order without jurisdiction, therefore the order dated 20.04.1999 be not set aside. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgement passed by this court reported in 2009 (3) PLJR 975 to submit that Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 confers revisional power only upon the Collector of the District and has submitted that the power of revision exercised by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum in Mutation Revision No. 18 of 1993 was itself without jurisdiction.

¶70

11. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that if the second title suit i.e. Title Suit No. 34 of 1973 is decided as per law, the dispute between the petitioner and private respondents will automatically come to an end. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that since the Title Suit is of the year 1973, some observation may be made for its expeditious disposal and the State is ready to co-operate for expeditious disposal of the title suit.

¶71

12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties this court finds that the sequence of events as narrated by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not in dispute. This court is of the view that the Title Suit No. 28 of 1966 which was decreed on 26.05.1971 was subject matter of appeal in Kolhan Title Appeal (KTA) No. 107 of 1971 and the decree was set aside and the appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 20.02.1973 on the ground that the suit itself was wrongly entertained for want of pecuniary jurisdiction on the date of institution/admission of the suit. The order of the appellate authority became the final and ultimately the plaint was returned to the plaintiff on 21.07.1973. Thereafter the plaint was re-filed and was instituted as Title Suit No. 34 of 1973 and was admitted on 04.12.1973.

¶72

13. In the meantime, the order dated 21.07.1973, by which the plaint was returned, was challenged in KTA No. 96 of 1973 and admittedly the Kolhan Title Suit No. 34 of 1973 was instituted during the pendency of the KTA No. 96 of 1973. When this fact came to light of the authority, the subsequent suit i.e. Title Suit No. 34 of 1973 was

¶73

6

¶74

( 2026:JHHC:2975 )

¶75

itself decided by holding the suit be struck off. The operative portion of the order passed in K.T. Suit No. 34 of 1973 is quoted as under:

¶76

“There was, thus, no scope for this court to admit the present suit on 04.12.73 on this scope also the present suit is not maintainable in law when the original suit is still pending in appeal.

¶77

The suit, is therefore, struck off.”

¶78

14. However, the order reveals that the suit was struck off primarily on account of pendency of Kolhan Misc. Appeal No. 96 of 1973. After passing an order dated 12.11.1975 passed in K.T. Suit No. 34 of 1973 striking off the suit itself, Kolhan Misc. Appeal No. 96 of 1973 filed against the order returning the plaint on the basis of which K.T. Suit No. 34 of 1973 was instituted, was dismissed vide judgment dated 04.12.1979 (Annexure-8) with observation that the principles of natural justice demand that the suit be heard.

¶79

15. This court is of the considered view that once Kolhan Misc. Appeal No. 96 of 1973 challenging the order regarding return of plaint was dismissed, the suit which was instituted upon re-filing of the returned plaint, that is, Title K.T. Suit No. 34 of 1973 automatically revived. The order dismissing Title K.T. Suit No. 34 of 1973 reveals that the same was dismissed primarily on the ground of pendency of Title Appeal No. 96 of 1973. Once the Title Appeal No. 96 of 1973 was itself dismissed and while dismissing the appeal, the court observed that the principles of natural justice demands that the suit be heard, there can be no doubt that Title K.T. Suit No. 34 of 1973 revived. Even the learned counsel for the parties during the course of argument do not dispute this position based on the materials placed on record. Accordingly, on account of subsequent development, the orders striking off the suit itself passed in K.T. Suit No. 34 of 1973 does not survive anymore and it is sufficient to observe that K.T. Suit No. 34 of 1973 is revived.

¶80

16. So far as order passed in Mutation proceedings are concerned, it is not in dispute that 2^nd revision is not maintainable. But at the same time, the order which was subject matter of 2^nd revision was itself passed by an authority who did not have the jurisdiction to entertain

¶81

7

¶82

( 2026:JHHC:2975 )

¶83

the revision. For this, reference has been made to the judgment passed by this court reported in (2009) 3 PLJR 975 wherein it has been held that the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 confers revisional power only upon the Collector of the District. Since setting aside of the order passed by the Commissioner who entertained 2^nd revision, would revive another order passed by the Additional Collector, which is without jurisdiction, this court is inclined to set aside both the orders. Accordingly, the orders contained in Annexure-10 (Order dated 27.09.1995 passed in Mutation Revision No. 18 of 1993) and Annexure-12 (Order dated 20.04.1999 passed in Singhbhum Mutation Revision No. 476 of 1995) are set aside.

¶84

17. Further it is sufficient to observe that the much will depend upon the decision in title K.T. Suit No. 34 of 1973.

¶85

18. Since the title K.T. Suit No. 34 of 1973 has now revived, the Additional Deputy Commissioner is directed to decide the case is accordance with law preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. All contentions of the respective parties, including the point of jurisdiction, is left open. It appears that there is also a related land acquisition case and the state/respondent no.3, shall ensure that the aforesaid authority dealing with K.T. Suit No. 34 of 1973 be informed about the status and disbursement of compensation in connection with land acquisition case registered as L.A. Ref. no. 16(14) of 1988 with respect to the properties involved in the suit, if any.

¶86

19. Considering the fact that the parties are tribals, the authority shall ensure that proper legal aid be provided to the parties for conducting the case and if so required, the Secretary, District Legal Service Authority will do the needful.

¶87

20. At this, the learned counsel for the parties submit that since the matter is old and they are not in touch with their parties, let this order be communicated to the concerned parties through the concerned police station.

¶88

21. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶89

8

¶90

( 2026:JHHC:2975 )

¶91

22. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.

¶92

23. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through

¶93