Judgment Satyabrata Sinha, J. 1. This writ petition involves interpretation of Rule 20 of the Wilkinsons Rules (the Rules for short ). 2. Before proceeding to decide the said question the fact of the matter may be noticed : respondent No.5 filed a suit before the Kolhan Superintendent, singhbhum at Chaibassa, being K. T. S. No.50 of 1990 for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of the suit property being Plot No.776, appertaining to Khata No.74 of Mouza Ichapur, According to plaintiff-respondent no.5, he purchased the aforesaid suit land in the year 1976 by a registered deed of sale executed by the record tenants. 3. On the other hand the case of the petitioner before the kolhan Superintendent was that by reason of an oral sale the land was purchased by him in the year 1961 from the recorded tenants and thereafter he remained in possession thereof. 4. In the written statement filed by the petitioner in the aforesaid suit, it was contended that in any event he has acquired title by adverse possession. 5. The Kolhan Superintendent in purported exercise of the power conferred on him under Rule 20 of the Rules referred the matter for arbitration of three patches. One panch was nominated by the plaintiff-respondent no.5 another panch was nominated by the defendant-petitioner and the third panch was nominated by the court. 6. Two of the the three panches submitted their award in favour of the petitioner, as contained in annexure 1. However the panch who was nominated by the respondent No.5 submitted another award. 7. By reason of the impugned order dated 15-6 1984 as contained in annexure-2, the Kolhan Superintendent, respondent No.4, rejected the majority award the accepted the minority award against which an appeal was preferred which was numbered as K. T. A. No.17 of 1984-85. By order dated 29- 10-1984, as contained in annexure 3, the appellate authority, namely the additional Deputy Collector Singhbhum at Chaibassa, dismissed that appeal. Thereafter the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Commissioner, south Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, which was numbered as K. T. A. No.221 of 1984. That appeal Wos also dismissed by order dated 28-12-1984, which is eontaiped in Annexure-4. 8. Mrs. Jaya Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised two questions in support of the writ patition. Thereafter the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Commissioner, south Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, which was numbered as K. T. A. No.221 of 1984. That appeal Wos also dismissed by order dated 28-12-1984, which is eontaiped in Annexure-4. 8. Mrs. Jaya Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised two questions in support of the writ patition. Firstly, the learned counsel contended that in terms of Rule 20 of the Rules, respondent No, 4 and consequently respondent Nos.3 and 2, had absolutely no jurisdiction to accept the minority award. Learned counsel further submitted that in passing the impugned order as contained in Annexures-2, 3 and 4 to the writ petition, the concerned respondents, namely, respondent Nos.4, 3, and 2 respectively did not at all consider the plea of the petitioner to the effect that he acquired title by adverse possession in view of the fact that he came in possession thereof in tbe year 1961 and thus must be held to have acquired title by adverse possession by 1976 when respondent No.5 purported to have acquired title in relation thereto in terms of the sale deed executed by the recorded tenants. 9. Mr. Jerath, learned counsel for respondent No.5 on the other hand, submitted that respondent No.4 has arrived at a finding of fact that the majority award is not above suspicion and therein the Panches considered the purported report of the Anchal Amin which was set aside in Misc Case no.16 of 1979 and, therefore, irrelevant matters were considered. According to the learned counsel, this Court should not interfere with such finding of fact. 10. Mr. Eqbal, learned Government Pleader No. I, has drawn my attention to the decision of this Court in Kishnu Sinku V/s. State of Bihar and others, 1987 BBCJ 577 and submitted that in view of the fact that two panthes were nominated by the parties, the entire proceeding was vitiated, inasmuch as in terms of Rule 20 as has been interpreted by this Court, all the Panches were required to be nominated by the Agent of Governor General in Council or his Assistant. 11. Rule 20 of the Rules reads as follows :- "20. The Governor Generals agent and his assistants are authorised at their discretion refer suits for decision to Panchayats after the plaints had been filed and defendants answer received. 11. Rule 20 of the Rules reads as follows :- "20. The Governor Generals agent and his assistants are authorised at their discretion refer suits for decision to Panchayats after the plaints had been filed and defendants answer received. Either at the Sadar Station or any other part of the district where the agents on the assistants cutchery may be at the same time. The panchayat who consists of three or five persons to be selected by the agent or assistants from amongst the person most convergent with the matter at issue. The persons who composed the Panchayat shall not be nominated until the plaintiff defendant, and witnesses had been assembled. The plaintiff and defendant shall each be permitted to challenge any member of the Panchayat and on giving sufficient reason for the challenge or other person or persons shall be selected to supply his or their place. The plaintiff and the defendant or their agents shall each be called on. On the Governor Generals Agent or his assistant determining to refer a suit to a Panchayaf, and before the member of the panchayat have been nominated to enter into angagement to abide by the decision of the Panchayat to be nominated by the governor Generals Agent or his assistant shall immeeiately direct a Moharrir to attend the Panchayt, 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 Kutchery or adjoining it to investi. gate the matter at issue when the pleadings shall have been finished ana evidence taken, the Panchayat snail direct the moharrir the parties to retire, consult the decide on their award and when they have come to a decision they shall recall the moharrir to record the award, which award having been duly attested with their signature they shall deliver to the Court oppointing it, by who a decree in conformity therewith shall be passtd which shall not be appellate or set aside, unless corruption can be proved against the Panchayat or unless the award shall be contrary to the common law of the country or the rules enacted by the Governor General in Council," 12. From a plain reading of the aforementioned rule, it would be clear that it is a self contend Code and provides for matter of appointment of panches, conduct of the Panchayat and power to set aside the award. It would be further clear that in terms thereof the Agent of the Governor general in Council or his assistant have been authorised to refer the dispute to Panchayat in their discretion Such reference can be made by either to three or five Panches most convergent with the matter at issue. 13. The award submitted by the Panches can be set aside only on the ground of corruption or if the award is contrary to the rule enacted by the governor General in Council or is contrary to the common law of the country. 14. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether the opinion of one of the Punches out of the three Panches can be said to be an award within the meaning of the aforesaid rule. . 15. The scope of the aforesaid Rule 20 of the Rules and the relevant provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (the Act) are in parimateria, and as the object and purport of both the statutes being the same, this Court may look to the definition of award and other relevant provisions for the purpose of considering as to whether such definition can be taken in aid of for the purpose of Rule 20 of the Rules. 16. Section 2 of the Act of 1940 defines the award as arbitration award. The judgment of a court of law or award made by the arbitrators must be one which is enforceable or in a case where a judgment is pronounced by more than two judges or award is being made by more than two arbitrators, a judge or an arbitrator may allthough differ with the views of the judgment or the award of the majority of the judges or the arbitrators; the opinion of such judge or arbitrator in minority cannot be said to be a judgment of the court or award of the arbitrators In this connection, reference may be made to sub-section (2) of Sec.10 of the Act which provides as follows : "10. Provisions as to appointment of three or more arbitrators- (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Provisions as to appointment of three or more arbitrators- (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) Where an arbitration agreement provides that a reference shall be to three arbitrators to be appointed otherwise than as mentioned in sub-section (1), the award of the minority shall, unless the arbitrator agreement otherwise provides, prevail. " 17. In my opinion, the principles laid down in sub-section (2) of section 10 and/or the provisions analogous thereto must be held to be implicit in Rule 20 of the Rules. If, therefore, the Agent of the Governor general or his Assistant, as the case may, finds that the charge of corruption has been proved against Panchayat or the award is contrary to the common law of the country or the rule enacted by the Governor General in Council, he may set aside the award, which must mean the majority award, but thereby does not get any Jurisdiction to make the opinion of an arbitrator in minority rule of the court, treating the same to be award. 18. In terms of Rule 20 of the Rules, it is evident that the award can be challenged by any party to the suit, and that award most be award of the panchayat. on the grounds mentioned therein. In other words, before the authority there is only one award, namely, the award given by the majority of the Panches and for the purpose of consideration whether that can be set aside, the court can only look into the conduct of the Panchayat as a whole and not only two of the Panches and accept the purported minority award. There is no provision in the Rule 20 that the minority award may also be accepted. In terms of the said Rule, the Kolhan Superintendent cannot sit in appeal over the award and his jurisdiction to set-aside the award is circumscribed by the terms thereof. 19. In this view of the matter, there is no doubt that respondent No.4 committed an illegality in accepting the minority award. 20. In this connection, it may further be mentioned that the entire proceeding was vitiated in law, inasmuch as both the parties have nominated their own Panches which is not contemplated under Rule 20 of the Rules. 19. In this view of the matter, there is no doubt that respondent No.4 committed an illegality in accepting the minority award. 20. In this connection, it may further be mentioned that the entire proceeding was vitiated in law, inasmuch as both the parties have nominated their own Panches which is not contemplated under Rule 20 of the Rules. In view of the decision of this Court in Kushun Sinku (supra), and in view of the findings recorded above, it is not necessary to consider as to whether respondent Nos 2, 3 and 4 misdirected themselves in law in so far as they failed to take into consideration the plea of the petitioner to the effect as to whether he has acquired title by adverse possession or not inasmuch as this question will have to be decided afresh either by respondent No.4 himself or by the Panchayat appointed by him. 21. In the result, this writ petition was allowed and the impugned orders as contained in Annexures 2, 3 and 4 are set aside. Parties shall bear their own costs. After the above order/judgment was dictated, both Mrs. Roy and mr. Jerath, submitted that the entire suit may be decided by respondent No.4 himself in open court without referring the matter to the Panchayat. In view of the fact that the matter is pending for a long time, it is ordered that the respondent No, 4 shall decide the suit with utmost expedition, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving notice to the parties, and after hearing them. Petition allowed.