MANOJ KUMAR THAKUR Vs. MAHIPAL MISHRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal Has Been Preferred Against The Judgment And order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2866 of 2010 dated 25th January, 2012. The learned Single Judge has remanded the matter to the Sub Divisional Officer, Godda to decide the matter afresh for appointment of the Headman (Pradhan) of Village Kurma, District Gooda keeping in mind the provisions of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter to be referred to as the "Act, 1949") and the Rules made thereunder. Being aggrieved by this order, original respondent no. 5 has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) Learned Counsel Appearing For The Appellant Submitted That The Post Of Headman of Khas Village is hereditary as per Clause 3 of Schedule V appended to the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary) Rules, 1950 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter to be referred to as the "Rules, 1950") enacted under the Act, 1949. This appellant is a legal heir and representative of one Nageshwar Mishra who expired in the year 1981 and he was last Headman of Village Kurma. Thus, the appellant being a maternal grandson of Nageshwar Mishra and is a son of eldest daughter of last Pradhan viz. Swarnlata Devi, he is entitled to be appointed as a Headman of Village Kurma under Clause 3 of Schedule V appended to the Rules, 1950.

(3.) Learned Counsel Appearing For The Appellant Has Relied Upon The Decision rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in (1997) 1 SCC 529 and also relied upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2003 (3) JCR 416. On the basis of these decisions, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that these aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge that the post in question is hereditary in nature and the appellant being a maternal grandson of Nageshwar Mishralast Pradhan of the Village Kurma, he should have been appointed as a Headman of the Village as per Rules, 1950 and, hence, the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside.