[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Md. Khalid vs State Of Jharkhand on 16 February, 2026
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:4308
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 5033 of 2022
Md. Khalid, S/o Late Punjab Ali, R/o Vill- Barari, P.O.-
Sukhari, Mehrma, P.S.- Meharma, Dist.- Godda, Jharkhand.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pragna Division,
Dumka, P.O.+P.S+Dist.- Dumka.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Godda, P.O.+P.S+Dist.- Godda.
4. Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahagama, P.O. & P.S.- Meharma,
Dist.- Godda.
5. Md. Aftab Alam, S/o Late Punjab Ali, R/o Barari, P.S.-
Mahram, P.O.- Sukhari, Dist.- Godda, Jharkhand.
... Respondents
----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Syed Nausad Ahmed, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, S.C.-I.
For the Resp. no. 5 : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Adv.
----
Dated : 16/02/2026
1. Heard Mr. Syed Naushad Ahmed, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, learned S.C.-I and Mr.
Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
no. 5.
2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for the
following reliefs:
"1. In this writ application the petitioner prays
for order/ orders/ directions in the nature of
Certiorari for quashing and setting aside the
order dated 17/05/2022 of Divisional
Commissioner, Santhan Pragna, Division at
W.P.(C) NO. 5033 OF 2022 1
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:4308
Dumka, (Respondent no 2) which was
passed in R.M.A no 45/ 2020-21, in excess
of jurisdiction and which is under challenge
and whereby and where under the order of
Deputy Commissioner, Godda (Respondent
no 3) was set aside which was passed in
R.M.A case no 32/2018-19 by reason of
which the order dated 29.08.2018 of Sub-
divisional officer. Mahagama (Respondent
no 4) was set aside, and without deciding
the matter on merit, the matter was
remanded to Respondent no 4, to pass the
order afresh for appointment of "Headman"
as per the procedure of Santhan Pragna
Tenancy Act.
AND
For order/orders to the respondent-2 to
exercise jurisdiction which is vested and to
act within the four corner of statue and to
pass the order in accordance with law and
in view of the order 13/3/2021 passed by
respondent no 4 in favor of petitioner for
appointment as "Headman" before passing
of impugned order which has not been
challenged yet.
For order/ orders, writ or any direction in
view of the facts and circumstances of the
case as your lordship may deem fit and
proper."
3. The factual aspects of the case reveal that Punjab Ali had
two wives; Zinat Khatoon and Nargish Khatoon. The petitioner is
the elder son of Punjab Ali, born out of his marriage with Zeenat
W.P.(C) NO. 5033 OF 2022 2
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:4308
Khatoon, while the Respondent no. 5 is the step-brother of the
petitioner, his mother being Nargis Khatoon. The father of the
petitioner and the respondent no. 5 was the Pradhan of village-
Barari, P.S.- Meharma, District- Godda and after his death, both
the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 claimed themselves to be
the Pradhan of the village by way of inheritance. The respondent
no. 5 had filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer
(respondent no. 4) in P.A. Case No. 21/2017-18 and an order was
passed by the respondent no. 4 on 29-08-2018 appointing the
respondent no. 5 as the Pradhan of the village concerned. The
petitioner had challenged the said order before the Deputy
Commissioner, Godda (respondent no. 3) by filing an appeal
being R.M.A. No. 32/2018-19 and vide order dated 23-12-2020,
the order of the respondent no. 4 dated 29-08-2018 was set aside
and the matter was remanded back to the respondent no. 4 for
passing a fresh order in the light of the observations made in the
appeal. Pursuant to the remand, the respondent no. 4, after
taking into consideration the report of the Circle Officer, had
passed an order on 13-03-2021 by reason of which, the claim of
the petitioner for being appointed as a Pradhan was upheld and
consequently, an order was passed on 04-06-2021 appointing
the petitioner as Pradhan under the provisions of the Santhal
Pargana Tenancy Act. The respondent no. 5 had, in the
meantime, challenged the order of the respondent no. 3 dated
23-12-2020 before the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal
Pargana Division at Godda (respondent no. 2) in R.M.A. No.
45/2020-21 and vide the impugned order dated 17-05-2022, the
order passed by the respondent no. 3 dated 23-12-2020 was set
aside and the order passed by the respondent no. 4 was affirmed.
4. It has been submitted by Mr. S. N. Ahmed, learned counsel
for the petitioner that the respondent no. 4 had passed the order
dated 13-03-2021 in favour of the petitioner based on heredity
W.P.(C) NO. 5033 OF 2022 3
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:4308
as well as the consent of more than two-third of the Raiyats. It
has been submitted that the petitioner had also executed the
"Kabuliat" in terms of Section 7(1) of the Santhal Pargana
Tenancy (Supplementary) Provisions Act, 1949. The respondent
no. 2, despite being aware of the order dated 13-03-2021 passed
by the respondent no. 4, had set aside the order of the
respondent no. 3 dated 23-12-2020, creating an ambiguous
situation.
5. Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent no. 5 has submitted that during the lifetime of
Punjab Ali, he had filed an application for appointment of the
respondent no. 5 as Karpardar and in the reports of the
respondent no. 4 as contained in Memo No. 426 dated 27-03-
2018 as well as that of the Circle Officer, Meharma as contained
in Memo No. 841 dated 07-08-2018, it has been mentioned that
the respondent no. 5 was working as a Karpardar/Sarvarkar and
the father of the respondent no. 5 had also expressed his desire
through an affidavit to appoint the respondent no. 5 as the
Pradhan. Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel has submitted
that no notice had been issued by the respondent no. 3 to the 16
Anna Raiyats which is contrary to Rule 3 of the Santhal Pargana
Tenancy Rules. The Petitioner during the lifetime of his father
was allowed partition in the property of his father and he was
removed from the property of his father which furthermore
undermines the case of the petitioner regarding the post of
Pradhan.
6. I have also heard Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, learned Standing
Counsel-I.
7. The Full Bench in W.P.(C) No. 3164/2005 and W.P.(C) No.
1141/2015, on being referred by the Division Bench to answer
one of the questions as to whether the post of Gram Pradhan can
at all be held to be hereditary after having considered the
W.P.(C) NO. 5033 OF 2022 4
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:4308
divergent issues, has observed as follows:
"24.I now proceed to examine the procedure for
appointment of village headman/Pradhan of a
pradhani village or a village other than khas
village in terms of Section 6, read with Rule 3 and
Schedule-V prescribed there under. Under Section
6, after the death of a village headman/Pradhan
in a pradhani village, it is the duty of the landlord
to report the same within a period of three months
of its occurrence to the Deputy Commissioner, so
that appointment of the next village headman can
be made in the prescribed manner. Rule 3(5) of the
SPT Rules, in particular, specifically provides that
in making the appointment of a headman both
under Section 5 as well as Section 6 of the SPT
Act, the Deputy Commissioner shall follow the
rules prescribed in the Schedule as far as it is
possible, except where the rules, expressly or by
necessary implication, provides otherwise,. There
are no other provisions except the above under the
Act and the Rules regarding appointment of
village headman of a pradhani village. Clause 3
of Schedule V provides that the office of headman
is hereditary and the next heir, who is fit, should
be appointed as the headman. The legal position
that the office of headman is hereditary, is no
more res-integra or open to question in view of the
decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Sheapujan Bhagat v. Thakur
Hembrom [(1997) 1 SCC 529]. The right to be
appointed to the post of village headman on the
basis of hereditary rights have been also held in
W.P.(C) NO. 5033 OF 2022 5
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:4308
series of judgments of the Patna High Court as
well as this Court. However, while dealing with
the issue regarding hereditary right to be
appointed to the post of village headman, certain
observations have been made which do not
appear to be in consonance with the provisions of
the SPT Act and the SPT Rules. In terms of
Schedule V Rule-3, the next heir who is fit should
succeed to the post of village headman on the
death or on resignation of the previous village
headman. However, the said right is not absolute
and a person may be refused succession on the
death of his father/mother, if he/she is
considered unfit for the post and reasons for such
refusal are recorded in writing. A bare perusal of
Sub-clause 3 of Rule 4 of Schedule-V leaves no
iota of doubt that the line of succession flows both
to the male and female gender in view of the
specific expressions 'father/mother' and 'he/she'
used in the said Clause. However, unlike the
appointment of a village headman of a khas
village in terms of Clause 1 of Schedule-V, while
appointing a village headman in terms of Clause
3 read with Clause 4, the statutory provisions are
silent as to whether any village custom is to be
followed in case of hereditary appointment to the
post of village headman.
25. A combined reading of the statutory provisions
creates a clear impression that while considering
the claim for hereditary appointment to the office
of village headman, the prospective candidate
must fulfill the criteria that (i) he/she must be a
W.P.(C) NO. 5033 OF 2022 6
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:4308
next heir; (ii) he/she must be fit to be appointed
and (iii) the previous village headman was not
dismissed for misconduct and in a case where
heir was approved by the Deputy Commissioner
to act for the headman, he had not mis-conducted
himself.
26. Though the SPT Act and the Rules made
thereunder do not specify the grounds under
which the candidature of an heir can be rejected
on grounds of unfitness, but by necessary
implication the like grounds on which a village
headman can be dismissed, can very well form
the basis of the grounds for refusing succession to
the office of village headman. Such grounds are
personal unfitness through excessive age,
defective intellect or physical infirmity. These
grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. The
Deputy Commissioner may, for other good
reasons, refuse succession of heir to the office of
village headman, for example criminal
antecedents on account of 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. He may
also be dismissed for destroying, damaging or
failing to guard the common property and
recorded rights of the village or for collecting from
raiyats in excess of the settlement rates. He may
also be dismissed for failure without due cause to
pay the village rents punctually or for alienating
or attempting to alienate without permission of his
W.P.(C) NO. 5033 OF 2022 7
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:4308
Jot, which is security for the rent. The
consequences of dismissal are also provided
under Clause 4, which includes loss of official Jot.
The exercise of power by the Deputy
Commissioner to reject the candidature is hedged
with checks and balances under Clause-4 and the
reasons for declaring an heir unfit has to be
recorded in writing. Since the act of rejection leads
to adverse consequences and taking away of a
vested right, the principles of natural justice can
also be read into it. The candidate must also be
afforded an opportunity of hearing and the
reasons for rejection should be recorded in
writing. In the scheme of the SPT Act read with
Rule 3(5) and the different clauses of Schedule V,
it is but apparent that Clause 1 does not fit into
the scheme of appointment of a village headman
of a pradhani village, which is by virtue of the
language of Section 6 and the nature of the office,
has been held to be hereditary in nature as per
the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Sheapujan Bhagat (Supra). Clause 1
contemplates ascertainment of general
acceptability of the candidate by the raiyats
before the Deputy Commissioner confirms the
appointment of headman, who has been
appointed in accordance with village customs in a
village which has been converted into a pradhani
village after complying with the conditions of
Section 5 of the SPT Act. If the requirement of
ascertaining the general acceptability of the
raiyats is read into before appointment of the next
W.P.(C) NO. 5033 OF 2022 8
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:4308
heir of a deceased Headman, as contemplated
under Sub-clause 3 and 4 of Schedule V, it would
lead to absurd results as the office of headman
could be rendered non hereditary. It is all the more
obvious from a complete reading of Clause 3 of
Schedule V that even if the next heir is a minor, he
may be appointed with a Sarbrakhar to manage
for him until he attains the majority and only if no
suitable Sarbrakhar is found, the right of the
minor lapses. Therefore, the only condition
hedged with the hereditary appointment of the
next heir of a deceased Pradhan of a Pradhani
village under Section 6 is the fitness of the
candidate."
8. The conclusions arrived at are as follows:
"3. Whether the process for appointment of a
village headman of a khas village and a Pradhani
village is the same?
The answer to this issue is in negative. The
process for appointment of a village headman of a
Khas village and Pradhani village are different
and distinct. In a khas village the procedure
prescribed by section 5 of the SPT Act read with
Rule 3 and clause 1 of the Schedule V is to be
followed whereas in a Pradhani village the
procedure prescribed by Section 6 of the SPT act
read with Rule 3(5) of the SPT Rules along with
Clauses 3 & 4 of Schedule V has to be followed.
4. Whether the Deputy Commissioner is required
to satisfy himself regarding the general
acceptability of the candidate in case of
appointment of a village headman on the basis of
W.P.(C) NO. 5033 OF 2022 9
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:4308
hereditary right?
The answer to this issue is in negative. In the case
of an appointment on the basis of hereditary right
the Deputy Commissioner is not required to act in
terms Clause 1 of Schedule V to the SPT Rules and
hence neither there is any requirement for
satisfying himself that the candidate is generally
acceptable to the raiyats."
9. Mr. S. N. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance on the concuring view which reads thus:
"9. So in a particular case if the female is a "next
heir" she can be appointed as a headman as a
successor to the office in exercise of hereditary
right in terms of SPT Act. The word "next heir" has
not been defined in the statute. But if all eligibility
criteria for being a headman is equal among the
surviving heirs of a deceased headman than in
the absence of any consensus between the heirs
to succeed the headman, the oldest among the
heirs be preferred to be the "next heir"."
10. What would fall from the above is that the process of
appointment of a Khas village and Pradhani village are distinct
and different. In the present case, the only issue which should
have been considered in absence of there being any consensus
amongst the legal heirs of the deceased Pradhan is the claimant
who is the oldest amongst the heirs. It is an admitted fact that
the petitioner is the eldest son of late Punjab Ali and merely
because the respondent no. 5 has worked as a Karpardar would
not bolster his claim of being appointed as a Pradhan.
11. So far as the impugned order passed by the respondent no.
2 dated 17-05-2022 is concerned, the same does not reflect the
order passed by the respondent no. 4 dated 13-03-2021.
W.P.(C) NO. 5033 OF 2022 10
Neutral Citation
2026:JHHC:4308
Moreover, it delves into the experience gathered by the
respondent no. 5 as a Karpardar and the no objection of the 16
Anna Raiyats, though the same are not germane for
consideration for appointment of a Pradhan by inheritance in a
Pradhani village. The order passed by the respondent no. 2 is
erroneous and beyond the legal requirements necessitating
appointment of a Pradhan in a Pradhani village and have also
not considered the order dated 13-03-2021 passed by the
respondent no. 4 and consequently, the order dated 17-05-2022
passed by the respondent no. 2 in R.M.A. No. 45/2020-21 is
hereby quashed and set aside.
12. This writ application is allowed.
13. It goes without saying that the respondent no. 5 is at liberty
to challenge the order dated 13-03-2021 passed in P.A. Case No.
21/2017-18 by the respondent no. 4 before the appropriate
forum, if he is aggrieved by the same and in case such avenue is
explored by the respondent no. 5, the issue of limitation shall be
appropriately considered by the Appellate Authority regard being
had to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
14. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands closed.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
Dated: 16th February, 2026
Preet/-
Uploaded on:16/02/2026.
W.P.(C) NO. 5033 OF 2022 11
