Satish Kapri, aged about 72 years, son of Late Saryu Kapri, resident of Village v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, P.O. &
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) L.P.A. No. 402 of 2021 --------- Satish Kapri, aged about 72 years, son of Late Saryu Kapri, resident of Village- Uper Rangani, P.O. Asanjore, P.S. Jama, District Dumka. ...Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, P.O. & P.S. Dumka, District Dumka. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, P.O. & P.S. Dumka, District Dumka. 4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Dumka, P.O. & P.S. Dumka, District Dumka. 5. 16/- Annas Raiyat of Village Upper Rangani, P.O. Asanjore, P.S. Jama, District Dumka. ...Respondents/Respondents ---------
Legal Reasoning
the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that the impugned order passed by the learned writ Court dismissing the writ petition does not call for any 5 L.P.A. No. 402 of 2021 interference. 13. 14. There being no merits in this appeal, it is hereby dismissed. Pending I.A , if any, is closed. R.K (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Arguments
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Appellant : Mr. R.R. Mishra, Advocate Mr. Arbind Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Praveen Akhauri, SC Mines-I Ms. Mohini Gupta, AC to SC Mines-I --------- ORDER No.6 dated 4th September 2023 Per, Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 18th November 2019 passed in WP(C) No.5107 of 2018 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 3. The writ petition was filed for the following reliefs: “1. That this is an application praying for issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction for setting aside the order dated 4.7.2018 (Annex-10) passed by the court of Hon'ble Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in R.MA. No. 161/2014-15 whereby the learned Court below was pleased to dismiss the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka dated 5.2.2015 passed in P.D. Case No. 15 of 2010-11 wrongly and illegally approving the recommendation dated 27.8.2012 of the S.D.O., Dumka for dismissal of the petitioner as Pradhan of Village Upper Rangani without hearing the petitioner and consequently allow the petitioner to function as Pradhan of the village and also for grant of other consequential relief for which the petitioner is entitled in accordance with law.” 4. The matter relates to dismissal of the appellant as Pradhan (headman) of Uper Rangani, P.O. Asanjore, P.S. Jama, District Dumka. 2 L.P.A. No. 402 of 2021 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that although the appellant has lost before the statutory authorities and the learned writ Court has refused to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities under the provision of Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1947 but the point which is required to be considered by this Court is whether there has been violation of statutory provisions by the respondents inasmuch as the procedure prescribed under Rule 3 of Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary) Rules, 1950 has not been followed. 6. The learned counsel has referred to Schedule-V of Santhal Parganas (Supplementary) Rules of 1950 and submitted that Rule 3 is to be read with the schedule appended to the aforesaid rules. He submits that if any allegation is found against the headman, then the required procedure for calling a meeting and raising of hands by the persons present in such a meeting is required to be followed to remove the headman. Such procedure having not been followed, the orders passed by the authorities under Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1947 are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents while opposing the prayer of the appellant has submitted that there was an allegation against the appellant of not protecting the public property or the rights of the villagers. There were allegations against the appellant regarding grabbing of public land which was in the nature of gochar and also grabbing of land of samshan. The learned counsel submits that the Deputy Commissioner has rightly exercised his power under the aforesaid rules and there was no requirement to follow any further procedure by calling for the meeting of raiyats and seeking their view by raising of hands. He has submitted that such procedure is followed only at the time of election of the headman. 8. It is evident from the enquiry report dated 23rd August 2011 (Annexure-6 to this memo of appeal) that allegations against the appellant of not protecting the public property or the rights of the village men have been found to be correct. There is a finding regarding the appellant indulging in grabbing of land of the raiyats or the public land which was in the nature of gochar. There is also a reference of Plot No.242, Gochar Plot No.468, Samsan Ghat Plot No.16 which were amalgamated with the jamabandi plot belonging to the appellant. Upon enquiry the allegations against the appellant were found to be correct. The learned Deputy Commissioner had initiated necessary proceedings against the 3 L.P.A. No. 402 of 2021 appellant and he ultimately dismissed the appellant vide order dated 5th February 2015 in terms of the procedure prescribed under Schedule-V of Santhal Parganas (Supplementary) Rules of 1950. 9. The appeal filed by the appellant before the Commissioner was also dismissed vide order dated 4th July 2018. The learned writ Court also found no merit in the writ petition and the writ petition has been dismissed by recording that there are conclusive findings recorded by concurrent authorities and the writ Court cannot act as a Court of Appeal. This Court finds that so far as the allegations found proved against the appellant are concerned, the same could not have been disputed by the appellant in the writ proceeding. The only argument is that the required procedure under Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules of 1950 has not been followed. 10. Rule 3 of the Rules of 1950 and the relevant portions of the schedule appended to the Rules of 1950 dealing with dismissal of a headman are quoted as under: “3. Rules regarding the manner of ascertaining the consent of Jamabandi raiyats and appointment of headman under Section 5.- (1) On receipt of an application from a raiyat or a landlord under Section 5, the Deputy Commissioner shall issue notice to the Jamabandi raiyats of the village and to the landlord in Form A. (2) The consent of at least two-thirds of the persons recorded as Jamabandi raiyats of the village shall be ascertained by the Deputy Commissioner by show of hands: Provided that if on the date so fixed at least two-thirds of the persons recorded as Jamabandi raiyats of the village fail to be present the Deputy Commissioner shall fix another date and issue fresh notices in the manner prescribed in sub-rule 3(1); if on the date so fixed, at least two-thirds of the persons recorded as Jamabandi raiyats again fail to be present the Deputy Commissioner shall summarily reject the application made under Section 5. (3) The decision of the Deputy Commissioner as to whether a person is entitled to vote or not shall be final. (4) If at least two-third of the persons recorded as Jamabandi raiyats give their consent for appointment of headman for the village, the Deputy Commissioner shall at once invite nomination for the appointment of headman and proceed to make the appointment. (5) In making the appointments of headman under Section 5 or Section 6 the Deputy Commissioner shall, as far as possible, follow the rules prescribed in Schedule V except where these rules, expressly or by necessary implication, provide otherwise.” Schedule -V 1……. 4. A person may be refused succession on the death of his father/mother if, for reasons to be recorded, he/she be considered unfit for the post. Dismissal of Headman The power of dismissal rests with the Deputy Commissioner subject to an appeal to the Commissioner, Santal Parganas. Headmen are liable to be 4 L.P.A. No. 402 of 2021 dismissed for the following reasons, and the heir of the headman dismissed for misconduct shall have no claim to the office: - 1. On account of personal unfitness through excessive age; defective intellect or physical infirmity, provided that in cases of this kind a headman during his lifetime may with the approval of the Deputy Commissioner, appoint his heir to act for him. Any misconduct on the part of the heir will render him liable to lose his claim to succession on the death or resignation of the headman for whom he acts. 2. On account of any proved fraud, violence, contempt of Court or other grave misconduct or of such oppressive or inconsiderate treatment of the raiyats or gross neglect of their interest as may be considered to unfit him for the post. 3. For destroying, damaging or falling to guard the common property and recorded rights of the village, or for collecting from raiyats in excess of the settlement rates. 4. For failure without due cause to pay his village rents punctually or for alienating or attempting to alienate, without permission his jot which is security for the rent. 5. The interest of a headman manjhi or mustajir is not transferable by sale or otherwise. But in case where such interest has been sold through the Courts and where the right of the purchaser has never since been questioned, recognition should not be refused to the purchaser merely on the ground that the sale took place subsequent to the prohibition by Government of such sale.” 11. Upon perusal of above quoted Rule 3 and the Schedule-V appended to the Rule, this Court finds that the power of dismissal rests with the Deputy Commissioner subject to an appeal to the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana. The argument of the appellant that further proceeding was required to be undertaken in terms of Rule 3 by calling a meeting of the raiyats and by raising of hand in the meeting is devoid of any merits. The said procedure is contemplated at the time of election of the Pradhan and is not at all applicable in the case of dismissal of headman. The power of dismissal clearly rests with the Deputy Commissioner subject to an appeal to the Commissioner, Santal Pargana. It has been clearly provided that headmen are liable to be dismissed for one or the other reasons enumerated in the schedule itself which includes acts of destroying, damaging or failing to guard the common property and that of the recorded rights of the village. The allegation of grabbing the common land of the village i.e gochar land and land belonging to samshan having been found correct against the appellant, the Deputy Commissioner was within his right to dismiss the appellant. No further proceeding was required to be undertaken in terms of Rule 3(2) of the Rules of 1950. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering