JUDGMENT 1. These two writ cases have been heard together as the main point involved in them is identical. 2. The facts of this case are that the plaintiffs-opposite party filed Kolhan Title Suit No. 18 of 1960 in the Court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner Singhbhum, for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the suit lands. The petitioners were the defendants. The Additional Deputy Commissioner dismissed the suit on merits by his judgment dated the 3rd March, 1966 ; a copy of which is Annexure ‘A' to the writ application. The plaintiffs went up in appeal before the Commissioner of Chota Nagpur Division, Ranchi. The appeal has been allowed by order dated the (Sic) 20th July, 1967; a copy of which is Annexure 'B'. The defendants have come up to this Court for the quashing of the order of the Commissioner. C.W.J.C. No. 7415 of 1967 3. The facts of this case are that the plaintiff-petitioners filed Kolhan Title Suit No. 17 of 1960 in the Court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum, for declaration of title and delivery of possession in respect of the suit lands. The defence set up by the defendants-opposite party was that they had right in the lands as agnates, and that on the basis of that they were in possession of the suit lands. The suit was referred to three Mankis (Panches) according to Wilkinson's Rules by which the civil administration of Kolhan area is governed. The Panches made the award. The plaintiffs challenged that award before the Additional Deputy Commissioner on certain grounds as the a ward was in many respects against them. The Additional Deputy Commissioner rejected the objection and accepted the award as valid by his order dated the 14th March, 1966; a copy of which is Annexure ‘A’. The plaintiffs went up in appeal. The appeal was also dismissed by the Commissioner of Chota Nagpur Division by his order dated the 20th July, 1967; a copy of which is Annexure 'B'. 4. The main ground on which the orders have been challenged in this Court is that the Additional Deputy Commissioner was not 'an officer' authorised by the Deputy Commissioner of Chota Nagpur to try civil suits of the value exceeding Rs. 4. The main ground on which the orders have been challenged in this Court is that the Additional Deputy Commissioner was not 'an officer' authorised by the Deputy Commissioner of Chota Nagpur to try civil suits of the value exceeding Rs. 300/- in accordance with Clause (b) of Column 1 of the Schedule appended to the Kolhan Civil Justice (Regulating and Validating) Act, 1966, (Bihar Act III of 1967), hereinafter called 'the Act'. 5. In (1) Dulichand Khilwal V. The State of Bihar (A.I.R. 1958 Patna 366) and (2) Mahendra Sinha V. The Commissioner of Chota Nagpur Division (A.I.R, 1958 Patna 603), it was held that Wilkinson's Rules continued to validly exist in the Kolhan area and suits could be decided in accordance with those Rules. But in (3) Jotindra Nath Roy V. The A.C. Company Limited and others (Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 548 of 1962) decided by a Bench of this Court, of which I was member, on the 1st July, 1965, the question was as to whether a Kolhan Superintendent, who had not been appointed 'an officer' to administer civil and criminal justice under Section 6 of the Scheduled District Act 1874 (Act XIV of 1874), could try and decide civil suits. The answer given in the judgment was that without such appointment or any legal authority he could not decide a suit under the Wilkinson's Rules. The judgment and decree passed by the Kolhan Superintendent in that case were quashed by grant of a writ of certiorari. 6. After the delivery of that judgment, the Bihar Legislature has passed the Act, that is, Bihar Act III of 1967. Section 2 of the said Act provides that the officers mentioned in Column 1 of the Schedule appended to the Act shall, in regard to the trial of civil suit and proceeding in the Kolhan area, exercise the powers which the officers mentioned in the corresponding entries in Column 2 thereof exercised under the Wilkinson's Rule made under Regulation XIII of 1833, and shall be deemed always to have validly exercised such powers. In Clause (b) of Column 1 of the Schedule with respect to the power to try civil suit and proceeding of the value exceeding Rs. In Clause (b) of Column 1 of the Schedule with respect to the power to try civil suit and proceeding of the value exceeding Rs. 300/- the officers enumerated are "Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum or any officer authorised by the Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum." In (4) Gangram Munda alias Gono Munda V. B.B. Shrivastava & others (1968 P.L.J.R. 61), the point which fell for decision was whether an Additional Deputy Commissioner, who had not been authorised by the Deputy Commissioner to try a civil suit or proceeding of the value exceeding Rs. 300/-, could be said to be 'an officer', whose judgments, decrees or powers are saved by Bihar Act III of 1967. The answer given by a Bench of this Court was that in absence of such an authorisation he could not derive such power or authority on the basis of the said Act. This decision was followed by another Bench of this Court, of which again I was a member, in (5) Mangal Singh Kunkal V. Rangi Goalin and others (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 385 of 1967) decided on the 10th March, 1969. 7. Mr. N.N. Roy, appearing for the plaintiffs-opposite party in C.W.J.C. No. 654 of 1967 filed on order of the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum, made on the 28th December, 1968, anthorising Additional Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum to try civil suits and proceedings of the value exceeding Rs.300/-. He as well as the learned Government Pleader No.1 appearing on behalf of the officers, submitted that even the post lac to authorisation will validate the proceeding before, and the judgment passed by, the Additional Deputy Commissioner in view of the language of Section 2 of the Bihar Act III of 1967, I am unable to accept this contention. The authorisation in favout' of the Additional Deputy Commissioner had to be made before he entertained and tried a civil suit of the value exceeding Rs. 300/- but obviously it was not so in both these cases. If that authorisation would have (Sic) preceded then the lacuna of the lack of his appointment by the local or State Government under Section 6 of Act XIV of 1874 would have been cured by Section 2 of Bihar Act III of 1967. But the language of Section 2 is not capable of curing the defect of the lack of authorisation by the Deputy Commissioner. But the language of Section 2 is not capable of curing the defect of the lack of authorisation by the Deputy Commissioner. That being so, it has got to be held in both the cases that the suits instituted before the Additional Deputy Commissioner and disposed of by him were done by an officer who had inherent lack of jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the suits or any proceeding connected. therewith. The appeals, therefore, disposed of by the Commissioner of Chota Nagpur Division were disposed of by an officer who had no jurisdiction to entertain and hear those appeals. 8. Mr. N.N. Roy drew our attention to a point taken in the counter-affidavit in C.W.J.C. No. 654 of 1967, stating that Pandu Ho, opposite party no. 2, died after the disposal of the suit by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, and, therefore, his daughter Kairi Kui had been substituted in his place in the appeal before the Commissioner, Chota Nagpur Division. In the writ application, Pandu Ho was made an opposite party and not the daughter. The writ, therefore, cannot be allowed in absence of the daughter. In an affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners, the stand taken was that Kairi Kui was a married daughter of Pandu Ho and, according to the custom prevalent in this tribe, she had not got any interest in the property of Pandu Ho, and, therefore, her substitution was not necessary. In my opinion, if the stand taken •on behalf of the petitioners is correct, filing the writ application against Kairi Kui was not necessary. Even assuming it is wrong, it will merely delay the quashing of the proceedings and the orders, which are patently without jurisdiction, by asking the petitioners to add Kairi Kui as a party-respondent to this writ application and directing the issuance of the notice to her. In either view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Roy. 9. In the result, both the applications are allowed. The orders of the Additional Deputy Commissioner as also of the Commissioner, which are Annexures A and B in the respective writ applications, are quashed as being without jurisdiction by grant of a writ of certiorari. There will be no order as to costs in either of the two applications. I agree Applications allowed