Jharkhand High Court
Lakhan Hembrom vs State Of Jharkhand on 10 February, 2021
1
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
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
perusal of facts of the case and considering arguments advanced by learned
counsels, I find that the findings derived by the Additional Dy. Commissioner,
RC
West Singhbhum, Chaibasa and affirmed by the Commissioner, Singhbhum West,
Kolhan Division, Chaibasa requires no interference. The same can be interfered
only if findings are perverse. From perusal of orders, this Court is in total
agreement with the findings expressed by the respondent authorities. Petitioner
has failed to demonstrate whether order of the Court below are perverse and
based on no evidence.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Management of
Madurantakam Coop. Sugar Mills. Ltd. Vs. S. Viswanathan reported in (2005) 3
SCC 193 has dealt with the same and observed in para 12, 13 and 16 as under:
"12. Normally, the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal,
as the case may be, is the final court of facts in these types of
disputes, but if a finding of fact is perverse or if the same is not
based on legal evidence the High Court exercising a power either
under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution can go
into the question of fact decided by the Labour Court or the
Tribunal. But before going into such an exercise, it is necessary that
the writ court must record reasons why it intends reconsidering a
finding of fact. In the absence of any defect in the order of the
Labour Court the writ court will not enter into the realm of factual
disputes and finding given thereon. A consideration of the
impugned order of the learned Single Judge shows that nowhere
has he come to the conclusion that the finding of the Labour Court
was either perverse or based on no evidence or based on evidence
which is not legally acceptable. Learned Single Judge proceeded as
if he was sitting in a court of appeal on facts and item after item of
evidence recorded in the domestic enquiry as well as before the
Labour Court was reconsidered and findings given by the Labour
Court were reversed. We find no justification for such an approach
by the learned Single Judge which only amounts to substitution of
his subjective satisfaction in the place of such satisfaction of the
Labour Court.
13. The Division Bench too in appeal, in our opinion, has
committed the same error. Maybe, there was some justification,
since if it had to allow the appeal, then it had to consider the points
on facts decided by the learned Single Judge. In that process it also
took up for consideration every bit of evidence that was considered
by the Labour Court as well as by the learned Single Judge and
disagreed with the finding of the learned Single Judge.
16. We note that the Labour Court has taken into
consideration the fact that the complainant had stated that on the
day when he went to meet the workman he was greeted with an
abuse, but this piece of evidence was not accepted by the Labour
Court rightly because it is rather difficult to accept that any normal
person who meets another person for the first time in his life would
straightaway abuse him without any rhyme or reason. In this
background, we cannot conclude that the finding of the Labour
Court on this question is perverse. The other argument of the
learned counsel for the appellant is that there was evidence to show
that the demand of Rs.10 was made as illegal gratification in the
guise of donation and that case ought to have been accepted. We
RC
must state that even this question was considered by the Labour
Court and was rejected on the ground that the mere statement of the
complainant in this regard without there being any corroborative
material was insufficient to hold the workman guilty. Even this
finding in our opinion cannot be held to be perverse taking into
consideration the overall fats of the case. In regard to the third
charge of not allowing the complainant to enter the godown also, it
cannot be said that the finding of the Labour Court is perverse. In
such a background it is not possible for this Court to accept the
contention of the management that the Labour Court's findings are
unsustainable in law. It may be possible for another person to take
a different view, but certainly it is not possible to give a finding that
the conclusion of the Labour Court was either perverse or not
based on evidence."
Further the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Depot Manager, Andhra
Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. N. Danaiah reported in (2020)
3 SCC 267 has observed as under:
"3.2 The reasons recorded by the enquiry officer which were
accepted by the disciplinary officer, were considered by the Labour
Court which refused to pass an order in favour of the respondent.
The learned Single Judge also upheld the award of the Labour
Court. The findings of fact as recorded in the departmental enquiry
and upheld by the Labour Court could not have been upset by the
Division Bench without any justifiable reasons. The conclusions of
the Division Bench are contrary to the findings recorded by the
enquiry officer."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of N. Eswari v. K. Swarajya
Lakshmi reported in (2009) 9 SCC 678, has dealt with the concurrent finding and
at para-13, has discussed para-43 of the Judgment passed in the case of Rajbir
Kaur v. S. Chokesiri and Co. [(1989) 1 SCC 19] which reads as under:
"43. When the findings of fact recorded by the courts below are
supportable on the evidence on record, the Revisional Court must,
indeed, be reluctant to embark upon an independent reassessment
of the evidence and to supplant a conclusion of its own, so long as
the evidence on record admitted of and supported the one reached
by the courts below. With respect to the High Court, we are afraid,
the exercise made by it in its revisional jurisdiction incurs the
criticism that the concurrent finding of fact of the courts below
could not be dealt and supplanted by a different finding arrived at
on an independent reassessment of evidence as was done in this
case."
Further, in paragraph-15 of the Judgment passed in the case of N.
Eswari (Supra) has held as under:
" 15. That being the position, we are of the view that it was not
open to the High Court, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction,
to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of the Rent
Controller as well as of the appellate authority."
RC
It is thus amply clear that in absence of prima-facie case, no interference
can be made in the concurrent findings arrived at by the authorities. When Courts
below recorded concurrent findings of fact on appreciation of facts and
evidences, such findings being concurrent in nature, are binding on High Courts.
However, when such findings are found to be against any provisions of law or
against pleadings or evidence or are found to be wholly perverse, the case may
call for interference.
It has repeatedly been held that findings of fact recorded in departmental
enquiry and upheld by Labour Court and Single Judge of High Court cannot be
interfered by the Division Bench without justifiable reason. In the case of
Krushna Narayan Wanjari Vs. Jai Bharti Shikshan Sanstha, Hinganghat
through its Secretary and another reported in (2018) 12 SCC 620 it has been
held that unless the approach is well perverse and the petitioner had acted in no
evidence, the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,
is not justified in interfering with the Award as it cannot re-appreciate the
evidence as an Appellate Court.
In the instant case nothing has been brought on record to show that
approach of the authorities is wholly perverse and it is a case of no evidence. It is
not permissible to the High Court sitting under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India in interfering with the concurrent findings as it cannot
reappreciate the evidence and the reasonings arrived at.
From the aforesaid observations, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the impugned orders need no interference and this Court is in full agreement
with the same.
The writ petition is devoid of any merits and accordingly the same is
hereby dismissed.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
RC
