Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1994 DIGILAW 419 (PAT)

Baisakhi Harijan v. Ghanshyam Mandal

1994-12-20

N.PANDEY, S.K.SINGH

body1994
ORDER Both these writ applications have been filed for quashing the order of the Commissioner. Santhal Pargana, dated 22.6.1993, whereby, he has affirmed the orders of the Deputy Commissioner. Passed in R.M. Appeal No. 13 of 1989-90. The prayer is also to quash the order of the Sub-Divisional officer, whereby, he appointed respondent no.6 namely, Most Budhani Devi, wife of Mohan Lal Mandal, as Pradhan of Village Saur Pachisa. CWJC No. 4724 of 1994 has been filed by one of the sons of late Mohan Lal Mandal, who was the Pradhan of the villager whereas CWJC No., 12793 of 1993 has been filed by Baisakhi Harijan, a resident of the village, with a prayer that the authorities be directed to appoint Pradhan after ascertaining the of views of 60 Annas raiyats. According to him, se neither Most. Budhani Devi (Wife of late Mohan Lal Mandal) nor the sons of late of Mohan Lal Mandai namely, Ghanshyam Mandal and Umesh Prasad, are entitled for appointment as a Pradhan. It would be appropriate to have a brief survey of some of the facts: Admittedly, late Mohan Lal Mandal was a Pradhan of the village. He died on 13.8.1987, leaving behind his two widows as well as two sons, namely, Ghanshyam Mandal and Umesh Prasad Mandal. After the death of Mohan Lal Mandal, Petitioner Ghanshyam Mandal his step mother Most Budhani Devi and the other son of Mohan Lal MandaI, namely. Umesh Prasad Mandal, started claiming their appointment on the post of Pradhan. The Circle Officer, Godda being a Landlord as per Section 6 of the Santhal Pargana (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 (herein after to be referred as 'the Act') submitted his report before the Sub Divisional Officer that Ghanshyam Mandal, being the eldest son of late Mohan Lal Mandal, be appointed as Pradhan. The Sub Divisional Officer after hearing all the parties, by his order dated 6.8.1989 held that in view of the dispute between Ghanshyam Mandal and Umesh Pd. Mandal that who is the eldest son of late Mohan La1 Mandal, it was difficult to appoint any of them. Therefore the appointed Most. Budhani Devi wife of late Mohan Lal Mandal as a Pradhan of the village. The order of the Sub Divisional Officer was challenged by Ghanshyam Mandal be fore the Deputy Commissioner. Godda. Mandal that who is the eldest son of late Mohan La1 Mandal, it was difficult to appoint any of them. Therefore the appointed Most. Budhani Devi wife of late Mohan Lal Mandal as a Pradhan of the village. The order of the Sub Divisional Officer was challenged by Ghanshyam Mandal be fore the Deputy Commissioner. Godda. At the same time it was also challenged by Baisakhi Harijan, one of the raiyat of the Village. The Deputy Commissioner after hearing the parties affirmed the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, appointing Budhani Devi as Pradhan. The parties, aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, preferred revision before the Commissioner, who also agreed with the findings, recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer and Deputy Commissioner, and held Budhani. Devi being one of the heirs of late Pradhan, was legally entitled for appointment as Pradhan as per the provisions of Section 6 of the Act. From the materials, placed before us, there is no doubt that Ghanshyam Mandal and Umesh Pd. Mandal are the sons of late Mohan Lal Mandal. At the same time, it has also been established that Most. Budhani Devi is also one of the wives of late Mohan Lal Mandal. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Ghanshyam Mandal, while referring different documents, just as the report of the Anchal Adikari, certified copies of the voter lists of the year, 1975-76 and 1984, which are placed on the record, pointed out that Ghanshyam Mandal was the eldest so of late Mohan Lal Mandal. Besides the aforesaid, he has also pointed out a copy of the affidavit, duly sworn by late Mohan Lal Mandal during his lifetime. To show that the petitioner is his eldest son He further stated that there are reports of Sarpanch, Assistant Settlement Officer, which would establish that petitioner Ghanshyam MandaI was working a Karparta of late Mohan Lal Mandal during his life time. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Most Budhani Devi as well as Umesh Prasad Mandal, tried to establish their case that Ghanshyam Mandal was not the eldest son. In fact, it is Umesh Pd, Mandal, who is the eldest son of late Mohan Lal Mandal. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Most Budhani Devi as well as Umesh Prasad Mandal, tried to establish their case that Ghanshyam Mandal was not the eldest son. In fact, it is Umesh Pd, Mandal, who is the eldest son of late Mohan Lal Mandal. Learned counsel, appearing for Baisakhi Harijan submitted since there was a dispute between the heirs of late Mohan Lal Mandal as to who can be appointed as Pradhan, the authorities had no option' but to appoint any other raiyat of the village after obtaining the wishes of 60 Annas raiyat under the provisions of Sec. 5 of the Act. According to him, none of the sons of late Mohan Lal Mandal or his wife are qualified for appointment as Pradhan. From the impugned orders, passed by the authorities, it would appear that they could not decide whether Ghanshyam Mandal is the eldest son of late Mohan Lal Mandal or Umesh Pd. Mandal. Therefore, he appointed Most. Budhani Devi, since admittedly she was also one of the heirs of late Mohan Lal Mandal From a bare reference to Section 5 of the Act, it would appear that the scheme under the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act is that a village headman should be appointed as Pradhan either on the basis of election or on the basis of hereditary right. Even in a case where there are two applicants one on the basis of hereditary right and the other on the basis of election, the Sub-Divisional Officer or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, has to first considers the case of a person, who claims on the basis of hereditary right. If his application is rejected on the ground that such person is not fit, as laid down in paragraph nos. 3 & 4 of 1 Schedule-V, then only the procedure for election can be followed. As per Schedule V, on the basis of hereditary right a male heir or female heir both can be considered. Our attention has been drawn towards a notification which has been printed at Page- 344 of the Santhal Pargana Manual 1911 (3rd addition). Part III deals with miscellaneous incidents. Column 10 deals with appointment and dismissal of Pradhan. As per Schedule V, on the basis of hereditary right a male heir or female heir both can be considered. Our attention has been drawn towards a notification which has been printed at Page- 344 of the Santhal Pargana Manual 1911 (3rd addition). Part III deals with miscellaneous incidents. Column 10 deals with appointment and dismissal of Pradhan. In Remark column it is mentioned that on the death of the Pradhan his nearest male heir, if duly qualified, will be appointed by the Sub Divisional Officer to succeed him. But we must indicate no other material has been placed before us to show whether the aforesaid provision still subsists. However Schedule-V of the Act, 1942, does not indicate that a preference in appointment of Pradhan has to be given to a male heir. We have already notice that the Sub-Divisional Officer appointed Budhani Devi only on the ground that it could not be decided that out of Ghanshyam Mandal and Umesh Pd. Mandal, who is the eldest son of late Mohan Lal Mandal. In our view, such escapist attitude of the authority is not proper. As claimed by the parties, all the relevant materials were placed before the Sub-Divisional Officer. If he was not satisfied on the basis of such material, he could have even hold enquiry and examine witnesses in order to as certain actually who is the eldest son of late Mohan Lal Mandal. It has been alleged before us that Most. Budhani Devi is aged about more than 70 years. Therefore, for all practical purposes, while entrusting the work of a Pradhan, the authorities were required to examine these aspects. Admittedly, Ghanshyam Mandal and Umesh Pd. Mandal are the sons of late Mohan Lal Mandal. Therefore, it was proper for the Sub-Divisional Officer to decide who is the eldest son of late Pradhan of the sons of late Pradhan are major and only qualified under the Act for appointment as Pradhan then on the basis of their hereditary right the Sub-Divisional Officer had to record a positive finding about their claim. In the background of the facts, stated above, in our view, this required afresh determination. In the background of the facts, stated above, in our view, this required afresh determination. The writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 4724 of 1994 is allowed to the extent, indicated above, the impugned orders contained in Annexure-xxx 1, 2 and 3 to C.W.J.C. No. 4724 of 1994, are quashed with direction to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda, to examine the claim of the parties refresh in the light of observations, made above, and dispose of by a reasoned order. In view of the aforesaid finding, recorded with respect to the case of Ghanshyam Mandal in C.W.J.C. No. 4724 of 1994 no relief can be granted to the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 12793 of 1993. Therefore, we have no option but to dismiss the some. CWJC No. 4724/94 allowed in part and CW JC 12793/93 dismissed.