JUDGMENT S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J. :- This appeal has been preferred by petitioners appellants against the order dated 15th March, 1990, passed by learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 580 of 1979(R). 2. The brief facts of the case show that the Respondents and their purchasers preferred a Kolhan Title Suit in the Court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum at Chaibasa bearing K.T.S. no.13 of 1969 for declaration that Schedule 'B' land of the plaint had been wrongly recorded in the name of Defendant No.1, Sudan Buriulli (father of petitioner, appellant No.1, Marshal Singh Buruilli) and the defendant Mahabir Buriulli (petitioner-appellant no.8 herein), in survey settlement record and the same should have been recorded in the name of Respondent Dasmati Kui, in her limited right. Further declaration was sought that after the death or marriage of defendant Dasmati Kui, the Schedule 'B' land will be inherited by plaintiff-defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 together. 3. The case of the petitioners-appellants, inter alia, was that the land, in question, belonged to Manki family of Asura, the oldest family in Kolhan, the last male holder being Sidui Manki, S/o Pargana Manki. As three other brothers of Sidui Manki, namely, Jamadar Manki, Mahati Manki and Moran Manki died without having any male issue, Sidui was the last male member of his family. After his death, in April, 1906, there was no male member in their family, so after Shradh ceremony of Sidui Manki, one Jamadar Ho was appointed as Manki by the then Government, who carried the work for six months. Subsequently, Banmali Buriulli, grandfather of defendant-appellant No.1, who belonged to the same killi was brought up by Nanika Kui, widow of Sidui Manki in her village and according to the last wishes of her late husband (Sidui Manki), and with the consent of agnates, adopted him (Banmali) as a son of the family. Banmali shifted to village Asura and forfeited his right in his parentage property, accordingly, and began to reside in the house of Sidui Manki in view of his adoption in the family. Jamadar Manki was discharged from the post of Manki and the adopted son, Banmali became the Manki and the Munda of the village Asura, which was earlier held by his adopted father, Sidui Manki. Banmali remained as Manki till 1922, whereinafter, he was discharged. Jamadar Manki was discharged from the post of Manki and the adopted son, Banmali became the Manki and the Munda of the village Asura, which was earlier held by his adopted father, Sidui Manki. Banmali remained as Manki till 1922, whereinafter, he was discharged. At that time, his son Sudan (father of defendant-appellant No.1) was minor, so another person was appointed by the Government. Sudan (s/o Banmali) having become major in 1939 was appointed as Manki of the village Asura and continued till his death in 1978. After him, his son, appellant No.2, Ganesh Manki become the Manki. The Kolhan Title Suit No.13/69 aforesaid was referred to arbitrators in terms of the provision of Rule 20 of the Wilkinson Rules. On such reference, the parties contested, wherein after, five Panches (arbitrators) submitted award. By the award, while four of the Panches decided the case in favour of defendants-appellants and held Banmali as adopted son of Sidui Manki, one of the Panches submitted its separate award, on difference of opinion, and decided the question against the defendants-appellants, in favour of plaintiffs-Respondents. The Respondent-Additional Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum while accepted the award given by one of the Panches i.e. the minority opinion, vide order dated 2nd August, 1977, decreed the suit-in favour of the plaintiffs-Respondents. Against the aforesaid decision, appeal preferred by defendants-appellants being K.T.A. No. 2/77 was also rejected by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, vide appellate order dated 16th August, 1979. The writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 680 of 1979(R), preferred against those orders by defendants-petitioners was also dismissed by impugned order dated 15th March, 1990. 4. The counsel for the appellants mainly raised the question relating to the jurisdiction of the Additional Deputy Commissioner in accepting minority opinion, given under Rule 20 of the Wilkinson Rules. Further reliance was placed on the award given by the majority decision of the four Panches, including the evidences taken therein in support of the contention that Banmali was adopted son of Sidui Manki. 5. The counsel for the Respondents while relied on the finding given by the original and appellate courts, also submitted that the basic question relating to adoption of Banmali having gone into by the court below, there being concurrent finding of fact, this Court should not interfere with the judgment in question. 6. 5. The counsel for the Respondents while relied on the finding given by the original and appellate courts, also submitted that the basic question relating to adoption of Banmali having gone into by the court below, there being concurrent finding of fact, this Court should not interfere with the judgment in question. 6. It will be evident from the impugned order dated 15th March, 1990 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 680 of 1979(R) that the appellants raised the question of jurisdiction of Additional Deputy Commissioner in accepting the minority award, but the question was not answered by the learned Single Judge, who simply took into consideration the reference of Misc. Case No. 119 of 1906-1907, geneology given by the parties, held that Banmali never claimed the post of Mankiship on the ground of adoption, but on the ground of agnatic relation and there being no assertion that Banmali was adopted with the consent of the agnates, without any objection the finding recorded by the Additional Deputy Commissioner cannot be held to be perverse and affirmed the order of the court below. 7. Similar matter fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Bhola Toppo Vs. State of Bihar and others ( 1991 BBCJ 386 ), wherein this Court held that in terms of the provisions of Rule 20 of the Wilkinson Rules, the minority opinion c In not be accepted in preference to that of the majority, inasmuch as, the award made by the majority of the arbitrators would be deemed to be the award made by the arbitrators. 8. Similar view taken by this Court in the case of Bhonj Ho and anothers Vs. State of Bihar and others (unreported) in C.W.J.C. No.1590 of 1987(R) decided on 7th March 1992. 9. In view of aforesaid pronouncements of this Court, I hold that the Additional Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to accept the minority decision. Either he should have accepted the majority award, which is the award in the eye of law, and if otherwise he wanted to differ with the same, at best could have referred back the matter to the Panches for reconsideration. Either he should have accepted the majority award, which is the award in the eye of law, and if otherwise he wanted to differ with the same, at best could have referred back the matter to the Panches for reconsideration. The learned Single Judge while failed to consider the aforesaid question of jurisdiction of the original court, also failed to take into consideration the evidences as were relied by the majority of the Panches, in their award, which can be stated to be an award in the eye of law. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, while I set aside the impugned order dated 15th March, 1990, passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 680 of 1979(R), also set aside the judgment dated 2nd August, 1977, passed in K.T.S. No. 13/69 and the appellate order dated 16th August, 1979, passed in K.T.A. No. 2/77 and remit the matter to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum (West) at Chaibasa for decision afresh, in accordance with law, and the decisions of this court, as referred above. 11. In the facts and circumstances, this appeal is allowed. There shall, however, be no order, as to costs.