LAWS(JHAR)-2012-7-162

GOVIND PRASAD PANJIYARA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On July 20, 2012
GOVIND PRASAD PANJIYARA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 29th July, 2011 passed in W.P.(C) No. 6905 of 2006, by which writ petition of the respondent-Ram Lal Panjiyara was allowed and the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 7th August, 1997; the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in appeal dated 3rd April, 2002, upholding the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, and the revisional order passed by Commissioner dated 14th August, 2006, all have been set aside, in the matter of dispute relating to the appointment on the post of Headman (Pradhan) under Section 5 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 and the appointment of the appellant on the post of Headman for the Village-Bansjora has been set aside.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant's father Basant Panjiyara was the Headman of Pradhani Mouza Bansjora. There were certain allegations of misconduct upon the father of the appellant while discharging his duties and, therefore, he was removed in the year 1989. The appellant's father challenged the order declaring him disqualified as Headman by preferring appeal, but during pendency of the appeal, the appellant's father died on 28th March, 1996. However, the appeal continued, obviously after taking on record the legal representative of the father of the appellant and obviously by impleading the appellant himself as party. That appeal was dismissed on 14th August, 2006. Therefore, the finding of misconduct and removal of the appellant's father from the post of Headman attained the finality. However, during pendency of that appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Act of 1949 was submitted by the writ petitioner-respondent/Ram Lal Panjiyara seeking appointment on the post of village Headman for the Khas village. However, the appellant submitted an application under Section 6 of the same Act of 1949. The application under Section 6 of the said Act can be filed in a case when village Headman of a village, which is not a khas village, and his successor claims his appointment as village Headman. However, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 7th August, 1997 considered both the applications, one filed by the writ petitioner-respondent under Section 5 and another filed by the appellant under Section 6 and held that both the applications be treated to be application under Section 5 of the Act of 1949. After holding and taking procedure on various dates, ultimately vide order dated 7th August, 1997 declared the appellant as Headman on the ground that the total voters i.e., Jamabandi Raiyats in the village are 63 and two had cast vote in favour of respondent-writ petitioner and 41 had cast vote in favour of the appellant. The said declaration was challenged by the respondent/petitioner by preferring appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 3rd April, 2002 dismissed the appeal of the writ petitioner-respondent. Not satisfied with the dismissal of the appeal, the writ petitioner-respondent preferred revision petition before the Commissioner, who also dismissed the revision petition of the writ petitioner-respondent vide order dated 14th August, 2006. The petitioner-respondent then approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6905 of 2006 Reported in 2011 (4) JLJR 330, which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the appellant who was declared elected even did not submit an application under Section 5 of the Act of 1949 whereas only the respondent-petitioner filed the petition under Section 5 of the said Act. The learned Single Judge also held that application of the appellant filed under Section 6 is deemed to have been rejected as the proceeding was continued under Section 5 for the election of the village Headman and the learned Single Judge also held that the appellant was disqualified to contest the election of the Headman, in view of the specific provisions under Schedule-V of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary) Rules, 1950 framed under the provisions of the Act of 1949 which specifically provides that "heir of headman dismissed for misconduct shall have no claim to the office".

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge committed serious error of law as well as error of fact. The error of fact is that the learned Single Judge observed about the implied rejection of the appellant's application filed under Section 6 of the Act of 1949. The learned Single Judge further committed serious error of law in holding that appellant was not qualified to contest the election of village Headman, in view of the fact that appellant's father has been declared disqualified to hold the post of village Headman. The learned Single Judge committed error of law in interpreting the words which indicate that the heir of dismissed village Headman shall not be eligible candidate, in view of the Schedule appended to the Rules framed under the Act of 1949.