Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1470 (JHR)

Manoj Kumar Thakur v. Mahipal Mishra

2015-11-26

D.N.PATEL, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2015
Order : D.N. Patel, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2866 of 2010 reported in 2012 (2) JLJR 78 dated 25th January, 2012. The learned Single Judge has remanded the matter to the Sub Divisional Officer, Godda to decide the matter afresh for appointment of the Headman (Pradhan) of Village Kurma, District Gooda keeping in mind the provisions of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter to be referred to as the “Act, 1949”) and the Rules made thereunder. Being aggrieved by this order, original respondent no. 5 has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the post of Headman of Khas Village is hereditary as per Clause 3 of Schedule V appended to the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary) Rules, 1950 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter to be referred to as the “Rules, 1950”) enacted under the Act, 1949. This appellant is a legal heir and representative of one Nageshwar Mishra who expired in the year 1981 and he was last Headman of Village Kurma. Thus, the appellant being a maternal grandson of Nageshwar Mishra and is a son of eldest daughter of last Pradhan viz. Swarnlata Devi, he is entitled to be appointed as a Headman of Village Kurma under Clause 3 of Schedule V appended to the Rules, 1950. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in (1997) 1 SCC 529 and also relied upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2003 (3) JCR 416 . On the basis of these decisions, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that these aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge that the post in question is hereditary in nature and the appellant being a maternal grandson of Nageshwar Mishralast Pradhan of the Village Kurma, he should have been appointed as a Headman of the Village as per Rules, 1950 and, hence, the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents submitted that the post in question is not hereditary at all. 4. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents submitted that the post in question is not hereditary at all. The Headman of the village should have been appointed in democratic manner and on the basis of election. At the most the case of the legal heir may be considered by the Deputy Commissioner of the district while appointing Headman of the village and, therefore, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge because respective parties have agreed before the learned Single Judge that the village Headman should have been appointed in accordance with law, which prescribes due notice to the villagers, after taking into consideration the Act, 1949 and the Rules made thereunder. In fact, this appellant had also agreed for remand of the matter before the Sub Divisional Officer. The Sub Divisional Officer must decide the matter afresh. The provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and all the decisions rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as well as by this Court shall be appreciated by the Sub Divisional Officer and the Headman of Village Kurma, District Godda shall be appointed by the Sub Divisional Officer in accordance with law within the time limit prescribed by this Court. 5. In view of the aforesaid submissions and also looking to the provisions of the Act, 1949 and the Rules made thereunder and also looking to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it appears that the matter has been remanded to the Sub Divisional Officer because the Sub Divisional Officer has not properly followed the provisions of the Act, 1949 and the Rules made thereunder for appointment of Headman of Village Kurma and, therefore, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal, at this stage. The Sub Divisional Officer, Godda will take a decision about appointment of the Headman of Village Kurma, District Godda keeping in mind the provisions of the Act, 1949 and the Rules made thereunder and also keeping in mind aforesaid two decisions as well as the decision which has been mentioned by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 25 th January, 2012 while remanding the matter in W.P.(C) No. 2866 of 2010. The last village Pradhan, namely, Nageshwar Mishra expired in the year 1981 and much time has lapsed thereafter. The last village Pradhan, namely, Nageshwar Mishra expired in the year 1981 and much time has lapsed thereafter. We, therefore, direct the Sub Divisional Officer, Godda to decide the matter within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court. 6. In view of the aforesaid observations and directions, this Letters Patent Appeal is hereby disposed of.