ANIRUDH SAH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ/ order/ direction to the respondents for quashing and setting aside the order dated 10.5.2011 (Annexure-4) passed in Pradhani Appointment Case No. 397 of 2007-08 by the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Dumka, rejecting the application filed under Sections 5 and 6 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appointment of Pradhan can only be made on the basis of hereditary claim under Section 6 or under Section 5 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act on the basis of consent of at least two-third Jamabandi Raiyats of the village. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed an application after the death of his father, who was last Pradhan of Pradhani Mouza on the basis of hereditary claim. The Sub Divisional Officer called for a report from the Circle Officer, Saraiyahat and on the perusal of the same, the Sub Divisional Officer, Dumka appointed the petitioner as Village Pradhan on the basis of Section 6 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act and thereafter, the matter was challenged by way of revision before the learned Deputy Commissioner, Dumka and vide order dated 18.6.2008, the matter was remanded to the Sub Divisional Officer for taking a fresh decision after due inquiry and after hearing both the parties. Accordingly, the Sub Divisional Officer has passed an order rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner. It is further submitted that the Sub Divisional Officer has no authority or power or jurisdiction to declare the Mauza as "Khas Village". In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the provisions contained in Sections 5 and 6 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949 and submitted that though the matter was remanded to the Sub Divisional Officer for taking a fresh decision , but the Sub Divisional Officer has not properly considered the entire issue and rejected the application preferred by the present petitioner and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by preferring this writ petition.

(3.) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy available under law and therefore, the present petition is deserved to be rejected. Hence, the same is rejected.