JUDGMENT :

1. In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case has been taken up through Video Conferencing. Concerned lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding which has been held through Video Conferencing and there is no complaint in respect to audio and video clarity and quality.

2. Petitioners have knocked door of this Court with a prayer for quashing Judgment dated 29.12.2006, passed in Kolhan Title Appeal No. 31/2003, passed by Commissioner, Singhbhum West, Kolhan Division, Chaibasa, whereby and whereunder Judgment dated 09.08.2000, passed by Additional Dy. Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in Kolhan Title Suit No. 25/86, has been affirmed dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioners.

3. Fact of the case in brief is that the plaintiffs/petitioners preferred suit before the Court of Additional Dy. Commissioner at Chaibasa vide Kolhan Title Suit No. 25/86 for declaration of right, title and interest and for confirmation of right, title and interest and for confirmation of possession or in alternative for delivery of possession. Defendants/private respondents filed their written statement stating therein that the suit was not maintainable and barred by limitation and as such the same was liable to be dismissed. Thereafter, following the principles of Wilkinson Rule, three Panches were appointed for settling the matter. The Panches, by the majority of Award, held that the plaintiffs/petitioners were the nearest agnates of Bhudhu Munda. However, the Additional Dy. Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, after hearing the parties, vide his order dated 09.08.2000, dismissed the suit on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties as well as on the ground that suit was barred by limitation. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan), Chaibasa vide Kolhan Title Appeal No. 31/03, which also stood dismissed vide Judgment dated 29.12.2006, which is under challenge before this Court.

4. Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously argues that the order passed by the Courts below is bad in law as well as facts and as such fit to be interfered by this Court. The findings of the Court below is totally perverse and beyond imagination. The suit has been filed within time. Learned counsel further argues that mere an entry in the records of right does not create or extinguish title over the properties. The right and title of Adivasi over the land are guided by their own customs or by Wilkinson Rules.

5. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submits that the suit as well as appeal has been rightly dismissed by the Courts below. The suit was time barred as the same was not filed within 12 years from the date of final publication of Khatian as required under Rule 3 of Wilkinson Rule.

6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. From perusal of facts of the case and considering arguments advanced by learned counsels, I find that the findings derived by the Additional Dy. Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa and affirmed by the Commissioner, Singhbhum West, Kolhan Division, Chaibasa requires no interference. The same can be interfered only if findings are perverse. From perusal of orders, this Court is in total agreement with the findings expressed by the respondent authorities. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate whether order of the Court below are perverse and based on no evidence.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Management of Madurantakam Coop. Sugar Mills. Ltd. Vs. S. Viswanathan reported in (2005) 3 SCC 193 has dealt with the same and observed in para 12, 13 and 16 as under:

“12. Normally, the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, is the final court of facts in these types of disputes, but if a finding of fact is perverse or if the same is not based on legal evidence the High Court exercising a power either under Article 226 or under Art