Subhash Chandra Sah …. … v. 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka 2. The
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.1905 of 2021 ---- Subhash Chandra Sah …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Gooda 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Godda 4. Md. Seraz …. …. Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Petitioner For the Resp.-State For the Resp. No.4 : Mr. Aishwarya Prakash, Adv. : Mr. Aman Kumar, AC to GP-I : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Adv. ---- 09/Dated: 16th April, 2024 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Pradhan and quash the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda by which the Respondent No.4 has been appointed as Pradhan of Mouza Barhara dated 04.03.2021 in P.A. Case No.17 of 1996-97 and also quash the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Gooda dated 30.04.2015 in R.M.A. Case No.56 of 2012-13 by which the claim of the petitioner has not only been rejected for his appointment as Pradhan of Mouza-Barhara but has completely deviated from the mandate of law. 3. From the argument and pleading of parties, it appears that the village in question is a Pradhani village and covered by Section 6 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act. The factual aspect is not in dispute. 4. The issue involved in the present writ petition has already been settled by the Full Bench of this Court W.P.(C) No.3164 of 2005 (Alamuni Hansda Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) with W.P.(C) No.1141 of 2015 (Md. Lukman Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.). Relevant paragraph Nos. 39 & 40 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow- 39. Upon a reading of the judgments in the cases of Sogen Murmu (Supra), Thakur
Legal Reasoning
Hembrom (supra), Smt. Swarnlata Devi (Supra), noted in the referral order in WPC No. 3164 of 2005 by the learned Single Judge, it would appear that there are some inconsistencies in the above judgments, but all these judgments are otherwise flawed in their reasoning and need to be overruled to the extent indicated here and above. In the case of Sogen Murmu while deciding the main issue involved therein i.e. whether a daughter married in Gharjamai form can be appointed as a village headman or not, the Court simply applied the purported customary law and adjudicated the same. As such, they need to be overruled. The case of Thakur Hembrom stands overruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheapujan Bhagat as indicated in the foregoing paragraphs. The decision in Baisakhi Harijan, so far as it holds that in a given case when 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 consider the case of the person who claims on the basis of hereditary right, does not appear to be in consonance with the interpretation of different clauses of Clause 5 under Rule 3 of the SPT Rules as accorded in the foregoing paragraphs since the statute does not contemplate simultaneous applications, one under Section 5 of the SPT Act and the other in terms of Section 6 of the SPT Act. So far as the decision in Smt Swarnlata Devi is concerned, the same are incorrect as it makes applicable the procedure prescribed by Clause 1 of Schedule V to the hereditary appointment by directing the concerned authority to satisfy himself regarding the general acceptability of the candidate to the raiyats. Thus, in conclusion, the judgment of Sogen Murmu (Supra) and Smt. 31 Swarnlata Devi (Supra) need to be overruled whereas the judgment rendered in the case of Baisakhi Harijan (Supra) needs to be overruled to the extent indicated above. The judgment of Thakur Hembrom (Supra) stands overruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheapujan Bhagat (supra) and nothing further needs to be done qua the same. 40. In the light of what has been discussed hereinabove, the issues raised can be answered in the following manner :- 1. Whether the office of a village headman under the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 ("SPT Act") is hereditary? The answer to this issue is in affirmative. The office of the village headman of a Pradhani Village is hereditary and the same has been recognised statutorily as well as by all the judgments including the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Sheapujan Bhagat v. Thakur Hembrom, (1997) 1 SCC 529. 2. Whether a female can be appointed as a village headman / headwoman as a successor to the office in exercise of hereditary right in terms of the SPT Act? The answer to this question would vary from case to case and depends on the Customs and tradition followed by the family of the headman in the case of Pradhani Village and village customs in the case of a Khas village. The SPT Act and the Rules made thereunder recognise that a female can be appointed as a village headman but if it is established by cogent evidence that the law of succession applicable to the previous headman's family 2 W.P. (C) No.1905 of 2021 disentitles a female from being the next heir then only in that event a female would be disqualified from becoming a headman. 3. Whether the process for appointment of a village headman of a khas village and a Pradhani village is the same? The answer to this issue is in negative. The process for appointment of a village headman of a Khas village and Pradhani village are different and distinct. In a khas village the procedure prescribed by section 5 of the SPT Act read with Rule 3 and clause 1 of the Schedule V is to be followed whereas in a 32 Pradhani village the procedure prescribed by Section 6 of the SPT act read with Rule 3(5) of the SPT Rules along with Clauses 3 & 4 of Schedule V has to be followed. 4. Whether the Deputy Commissioner is required to satisfy himself regarding the general acceptability of the candidate in case of appointment of a village headman on the basis of hereditary right? The answer to this issue is in negative. In the case of an appointment on the basis of hereditary right the Deputy Commissioner is not required to act in terms Clause 1 of Schedule V to the SPT Rules and hence neither there is any requirement for satisfying himself that the candidate is generally acceptable to the raiyats. 5. Whether the judgments rendered in cases of Jagdish Misra v. Chamakial Misra [1965 BLJR 674), Baisakhi Harijan v. State of Bihar [1995 BBCJ 131], Smt. Swarnlata Devi v. State of Jharkhand [2003 (3) JLJR 724 (JHC) : 2003 SCC Online Jhar 341], Babu Lal Mandal v. State of Jharkhand (2008(3) JLJR 455 (JHC) 2008 SCC Online Jhar 1151], Sogen Murmu v State of Jharkhand [2012 (2) AIR Jhar 179 2011 SCC Online Jhar 997] and Subhas Chandra Sah v. State of Jharkhand and others [2012 (3) AIR Jhar 760 2012 SCC Online Jhar 149) have incorrectly interpreted the provisions of the SPT Act and the Rules made thereunder with regard to appointment of a village headman and therefore are liable to be overruled? In view of the discussions made herein above, the instant issue is answered in affirmative. The judgments rendered in Jagdish Misra v. Chamaklal Misra (1965 BLJR 674), Smt. Swarnlata Devi v. State of Jharkhand (2003 (3) JLJR 724 (JHC) : 2003 SCC Online Jhar 341), Babu Lal Mandal State of Jharkhand (2008(3) JLJR 455 (JHC) 2008 SCC Online Jhar 1151, Sogen Murmu State of Jharkhand (2012 (2) AIR Jhar 179 2011 SCC Online Jhar 997) and Subhas Chandra Sah, State of Jharkhand and others (2012 (3) AIR Jhar 760:2012 SCC Online Jhar 149) have incorrectly interpreted and applied the provisions of SPT Act and the Rules made thereunder with regard 33 to appointment of a village headman and therefore are liable to be overruled. So far as the case of Baisakhi Harijan v. State of Bihar (1995 BBCJ 131) is concerned it is liable to the overruled to the extent it held as follows (at pg. 133): “….. 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 consider the case of a person who claims on the basis of hereditary right....” 3 W.P. (C) No.1905 of 2021 5. Admittedly, the present village is a “Pradhani Village” and the Full Bench has clearly laid down the law that Section 6 of the S.P.T. Act will be applicable. 6. In the present writ petition, through impugned order, process prescribed under Section 5 of the S.P.T. Act has been followed which has meant for the “Khas village”. 7.
Decision
In view of the above legal position and the factual matrix of the case, the impugned order dated 04.03.2021 passed by S.D.O., Godda in P.A. Case No.17 of 1996-97 and order dated 30.04.2015 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Godda in R.M.A. Case No.56 of 2012-13 are, hereby, set aside. 8. The authorities are directed to proceed in accordance with Section 6 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949. 9. With above observation and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Shahid-Kushwaha./- Uploaded (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 4 W.P. (C) No.1905 of 2021