JUDGMENT : Ramratna Singh and Anwar Ahmad, JJ. 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 JUDGMENT :s 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. 4. It would be convenient to take up the last two points urged by learned Counsel together. 4. It would be convenient to take up the last two points urged by learned Counsel together. It is conceded that suits of the nature of the suit in question are governed by rules (known as Wilkinson's Rules) for the administration of civil justice within the jurisdiction of the Agent to the Governor General under Regulation XIII of 1833, which, as has been held by the court in its earlier decision Dulichand Kharwal v. State 1956 PLR 164 has the force of law and that paragraph 20 of the said rules is relevant for the present case. There was some difference between the typed copy of paragraph 20 which the counsel for the petitioner had received from his client and the typed copy which was shown to us by Mr. Sarkar, who appeared for opposite parties 3 and 4. Even the typed copy which the State Government had received from the Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum was not authentic. The State counsel was, therefore, asked by us to get an authentic copy, and he produced a typed copy certified by a Deputy Collector to be a true copy of the original copy kept in the Deputy Commissioner's Record Room at Chaibassa. Paragraph 20 of the rules reads as follows: The Governor General's Agent and his assistant are authorised at their discretion to refer suits for decision to Panchayats after the plaintiffs had been filed and defendant's answer received, either at the Sadar Station or at any other part of the District where the agents or an assistant's Cutchery may be at the time. The Panchayat to consist of three or five persons to be selected by the agents or assistants from amongst the persons most conversant with the matter at issue. The persons to compose the Panchayat shall not be nominated until the plaintiff, defendant and witnesses have been assembled. The plaintiff and defendant shall each be permitted to challenge any member of the Panchayat and on giving sufficient reasons for the challenge other person or persons shall be selected to supply his or their place. The persons to compose the Panchayat shall not be nominated until the plaintiff, defendant and witnesses have been assembled. The plaintiff and defendant shall each be permitted to challenge any member of the Panchayat and on giving sufficient reasons for the challenge other person or persons shall be selected to supply his or their place. The plaintiff and defendant or their Agents shall each be called on, on the Governor General's Agent or his assistant determining to refer a suit to a Panchayat, and before the members of the Panchayat have been nominated to enter into engagements to abide by the decision of a Panchayat to be nominated by the Governor General's Agent or his Assistant, when the Panchayat has been nominated the Governor General's Agent or his assistant shall immediately direct a Mohorir to attend the Panchayat whose duty it shall be under the direction of the Panchayat to record their proceedings and award. He shall then direct them to proceed forthwith to some convenient place in his Cutcherry of adjoining it to investigate the matter at issue. When the pleadings shall have been finished and evidence taken, the Panchayat shall direct the Moharir and parties to retire consult and decide on their award, and when they have come to a decision they shall recall the Moharir to record the award, which award having been duly attested with their signatures, they shall deliver to the court appointing it, by whom a decree in corformity there-with shall be passed which shall not be appealable or set aside, unless (J) corruption can be proved against the Panchayat or (2) unless the award shall be contrary to the common law of the country or the rules enacted by the Governor General in Council. There is no dispute that panches were appointed in consultation with the parties to the suit and the dispute was referred to those panches. There is no allegation that any challenge was made by any of the parties to the appointment of the panches who gave the award. The provision in the said paragraph requires a Muharrir to attend the panchayat to record the proceedings and award under their directions. It also requires evidence to be taken by the Panches. But this provision does not mean that the evidence shall be recorded as is done in ordinary civil courts. The provision in the said paragraph requires a Muharrir to attend the panchayat to record the proceedings and award under their directions. It also requires evidence to be taken by the Panches. But this provision does not mean that the evidence shall be recorded as is done in ordinary civil courts. There is no provision requiring the panches to submit the evidence along with the award to the court. There are only two grounds for setting aside the award, viz., (1) proof of corruption against the panchayat, and (2) the award not being in conformity with the law of the land. In his final ORDER :dated 16-12-64, the Additional Deputy Commissioner has said that though it was argued on behalf of the defendant (petitioner in this Court) that no evidence was recorded by the panchayat, no affidavit was filed on his behalf in support of this allegation by the plaintiffs of the suit that evidence had been taken. The only inference, therefore, is that the Additional Deputy Commissioner rejected this allegation urged on behalf of the defendant, as no affidavit had been sworn in support of the same. Then, the Additional Deputy Commissioner referred to a petition dated 14-12-64 filed on behalf of the defendant making allegations to the effect that Devendra Manki and at his instance the other two Mankis or panches did not record the evidence of the defendant and, instead, threatened and scolded him and his witnesses. The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner rejected this allegation on the ground that no such allegation had been made on 1-12-64, when both the parties were first heard on receipt of the award and he was of the opinion that the petition dated 14-12-64 was itself an after-thought. Ultimately, he arrived at the finding that there was nothing in the award to indicate that there had been any corruption by the panchayat or the award was against the law of the land. The objection petition of the defendant dated 14-12-64 was rejected and the suit was decreed on the basis of the award. Nothing is said in this ORDER :of the Additional Deputy Commissioner that on 9-6-64 he had directed the Mankis to produce the recorded evidence. From the Commissioner's ORDER :dated 20-9-66, in appeal, however, it appears that the Deputy Commissioner had passed an ORDER :on 9-6-64 calling for the evidence of the Mankis. Nothing is said in this ORDER :of the Additional Deputy Commissioner that on 9-6-64 he had directed the Mankis to produce the recorded evidence. From the Commissioner's ORDER :dated 20-9-66, in appeal, however, it appears that the Deputy Commissioner had passed an ORDER :on 9-6-64 calling for the evidence of the Mankis. It is not clear from the Commissioner's ORDER :whether the ORDER :dated 9-6-64 was actually communicated to the Mankis or panches, nor is there any specific statement to that effect in the petition. In paragraph 9 of the petition, it is merely said that, though by ORDER :dated 9-6-64 the Mankis had been directed to produce the recorded evidence, they failed to produce the same. However, as has been pointed out, by the Commissioner the non-production of the evidence was not material, because the defendant's contendon that no evidence was recorded by the Mankis had been challenged by the plaintiffs and the defendant failed to comply with the ORDER :of the Additional Deputy Commissioner to file an affidavit in support of that allegation of his. The Commissioner has, therefore, observed that the trial court was not bound to have called for the evidence recorded by the Mankis after hearing both the parties and coming to the conclusion that such evidence was uncalled for. It cannot be said that this observation of the learned Commissioner is unwarranted or unjustified. Regarding the other allegations made by the defendant, which had been discussed in the ORDER :of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, the Commissioner has referred to the relevant facts and agreed with the Additional Deputy Commissioner. It is not possible, therefore, to accept the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in respect of points 2 and 3. 5. Regarding point No. 1 raised by learned Counsel, it is necessary to refer to the Kolhan Civil Justice (Regulating and Validating) Act, 1966 (Bihar Act III of 1967), which was enacted to regulate the administration of Civil Justice and to validate certain past actions in the Kolhan area with the exception of the areas comprised within the municipality of Chaibassa in the Sadar Subdivision of the district of Singhbhurn. Section 2 of this Act, along with the Schedule, is reproduced below: 2. Section 2 of this Act, along with the Schedule, is reproduced below: 2. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, or any JUDGMENT :, decree or ORDER :of any court, the officers mentioned in column I of the Schedule shall, in regard to the trial of civil suit and proceeding arising within the local limits of the Kolhan with the exception of the areas comprised within the municipality of Chaibassa in the Sadar Sub-division of the district of Singhbhurn and hearing of appeal, review or revision arising therefrom, exercise the powers which the officers mentioned in the corresponding entries in column 2 thereof exercised under the Wilkinson's Rules made under Regulation XIII of 1833, and shall be deemed always to have validly exercised such powers, and no ORDER :, JUDGMENT : or decree passed by them shall be deemed to be invalid or shall be called in question in any court or proceeding whatsoever merely on the ground that they were not so empowered. SCHEDULE. Column 1 (See Section 2) Column 2. (a) Kalhan Superintendent Munsif. or any other Officer authorised by the Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum to try Civil suit and proceeding of the value not exceeding three hundred rupees, Assistant to (b) Deputy Commissioner of the Governor- Singhbhum or any other Officer General's Agent. authorised by the Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum to try civil suit and proceeding of the value exceeding three hundred rupees and to hear appeal or review arising from the JUDGMENT : of the Kolhan Superintendent or of any other Officer authorised by the Deputy Commissioner to try civil suit and proceeding of the value not exceeding three hundred rupees. (c) Commissioner of Chotanagpur Governor-General's Division. Agent. It was conceded that Clause (b) of the Schedule applies to the instant case. It will be noticed that this clause empowers only the Deputy Commissioner or any Officer authorised by him to hear and decide civil suits of the value exceeding Rs. 300; and the value of the present suit was Rs. 500. Admittedly, the Additional Deputy Commissioner tried the suit, but there is nothing on the record to show that he was authorised by the Deputy Commissioner to try. 300; and the value of the present suit was Rs. 500. Admittedly, the Additional Deputy Commissioner tried the suit, but there is nothing on the record to show that he was authorised by the Deputy Commissioner to try. such civil suits or even the present suit, we gave time" to the counsel for the State to produce such authority, if any; but he has informed us today that no such authority has been, found except a notification, No. 3406R dated 31-8-44, by the Commissioner of Chota Nagpur, authorising the Additional District Magistrate to hear such suits. Even assuming that the Additional Deputy Commissioner also is the Additional District Magistrate, the authority given by the Commissioner is of no avail, because Clause (b) of the Schedule to Section 2 or Bihar Act III of 1967 requires the authority by the Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum. Hence, the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum had no jurisdiction to try the present suit, and, therefore, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner must prevail. 6. When the ORDER :of the Additional Deputy Commissioner was completely without jurisdiction, the ORDER :, on appeal, by the Commissioner of Chota Nagpur Division is redundant and it cannot cure the defect. 7. In the result, the ORDER :of the Additional Deputy Commissioner dated 16-12-64 in Kolhan Title Suit No. 15 of 1955 and the ORDER :of the Commissioner dated 20-9-66 in Kolhan Title Appeal No. 5 of 1965 are quashed and shall not affect the rights of the parties to the suit. The application is allowed accordingly. Parties will bear their own costs. Application Allowed.