1

RC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P. (C) No. 2399 of 2007

1.

Lakhan Hembrom

2.

Sanatan Ho

3.

Dasrath Ho

4.

Lilmoni Kui

5.

Jitendra Ho

6.

Soma Ho

7.

Dukru Hembrom

8.

Duka Hembrom

9.

Gunia Hembrom

10.

Manki Sagar Hembrom @ Manki Sagar Ho

11.

Lakhan Ho

12.

Junai Kui

13.

Gangaram Ho

14.

Rengo Ho

15.

Gangaram Ho

16.

Sonaram Ho

17.

Kujban Ho

18.

Gangaram Ho

19.

Sagar Ho

20.

Mangal Ho

21.

Gangaram Ho

22. A. Jeba Hembrom

22. B. Baburam Hembram

22. C. Sonaram Hembram

… PETITIONERS

Vs.

1. State of Jharkhand

2. Suprabhat Hembrom

3. Trilochan Hembrom

4. Sushila Kui

5. Kajal Ho

6. Kapur Ho

7. Pani Kui.

… … RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK

(Through : Video Conferencing)

For the Petitioners

:

Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate

For the Respondents – State:

Mr. Rakesh Sahi, AC to AG

For the respondent nos. 2 to 7:

Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate

17/10.02.2021

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.

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

2

RC

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.

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.

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.

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.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. From

perusa