MAHIPAL MISHRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition is preferred challenging the order dated 6th May. 2010 (Annexure 14 to the writ petition) in R.M.A. No. 25 of 2005-06. The dispute relates to the appointment of Headman of village Kurma, Police Station Godda (Mufasil) within the district of Godda. The last pradhan, namely, Nageshwar Mishra died in the year 1981 and on his death, the village became khas and thereafter entire dispute started in respect of the appointment of the Headman. The eldest daughter of the last pradhan, namely, Swarnlata Devi, Nephew of Late Nageshwar Mishra i.e. petitioner and the grand son were contesting for the said post. After the death of Swarnlata Devi, only two contenders are claimant for the said post of Headman. Several rounds of litigation continued upto the High Court, thereafter the matter was remitted to the Deputy Commissioner/Sub Divisional Officer, Godda.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed a number of orders to demonstrate that direction of the High Court was not followed. However, at present, impugned order, Annexure 14 to the writ petition, narrates the entire controversy, and finally, after the death of Swarnlata Devi, who was appointed/acting as pradhan, an inquiry was conducted and appointment process commenced denovo. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda has concluded that reconsideration of all the past proceedings are of no consequence since the entire appointment process has to be undertaken again. The finding is that appointment of Pradhan has to be made in accordance with the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary) Rules, 1950 and also in compliance of the previous directions of the High Court in its various decisions.

(3.) Learned counsel has cited a Division Bench decision of this Court in Sogen Murmu v. State of Jharkhand and others, 2012 2 JCR 1.