Anand Hansda vs State Of Jharkhand

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J

The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 06.12.2022 passed in W.P(C) No.2513 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

Factual Matrix

The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition needs to refer herein which reads as under:

(i) Writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner (appellant herein) on the basis of the fact that the village Phulbaria within P.S-Boarijore, District-Godda is Pradhani Mouza and Late Arjun Hansda, the father of the appellant and the respondent no. 6 Sanat Hansda, was Pradhan of the village and after the death of Late Arjun Hansda, the post of Pradhan was vacant. The appellant is son of the first wife of Late Arjun Hansda and respondent no. 6 is son of the second wife of Late Arjun Hansda.

(ii) The seat of Pradhan was vacant on death of Late Arjun Hansda, then the appellant and the respondent no. 6 made application to the office of the respondent no. 4 mentioning therein the current situation of the village Phulbaria, Godda, is Pradhani village and the Pradhan of the village, namely, Late Arjun Hansda had died and the post of Pradhan may be filled on the basis of hereditary in terms of section 6 of Santhal Paragana Tenancy (Supplementary Provision) Act, 1949 (in short, the Act of 1949) and Schedule-V of the Santhal Paragana Tenancy (Supplementary) Rules, 1950 (in short, Rules, 1950). The matter was proceeded with and the case was registered as P.A. Case No. 47/2003-04.

(iii) Report from the respondent no. 5 was called for by the respondent no. 4 and vide order dated 26.10.2004, the order was passed wherein it was mentioned that on the basis of the report dated 21.06.2004 submitted by the respondent no.5, the respondent no. 6 is found to be the elder son of Late Arjun Hansda and he is fit to be appointed for the post of Pradhan. Further, it was found that 16 Anna Raiyats have submitted their application and on perusal of the application it is found that the 16 Anna Raiyats are in favour of making the appellant as Pradhan as the appellant is the competent person.

(iv) After submission of the report dated 21.06.2004 by the respondent no. 5 in the Court of respondent no. 4, again a report was called for from the respondent no. 5 vide order dated 01.07.2004 passed in P.A. Case No. 47/2003-04, but the same was never received and the matter proceeded on the basis of report dated 21.06.2004.

(v) The respondent no. 4 vide its order dated 26.10.2004 appointed the respondent no. 6 as Pradhan for the village Phulbaria, Godda under section 6 of the Santhal Paragana Tenancy (Supplementary Provision) Act, 1949 and Schedule V of the Santhal Paragana Tenancy (Supplementary) Rules, 1950 and directed the respondent no. 6 to deposit kabuliyat and security for one year in the treasury.

(vi) The appellant, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the respondent no. 3 in R.M.A. No. 70/2004-05 challenging the order dated 26.10.2004 passed by the respondent no. 4.

(vii) The matter was heard and finding the fact that the appellant is elder to the respondent no. 6 as the age of the appellant was 46 years and the age of the respondent no. 6 was 44 years as per voter list, further the age of the appellant is found to be 11.11.1961 as per Transfer Certificate issued from the St. Joseph Middle School, Barmasia, and further finding that the 16 Anna Raiyats have not been heard properly wherein they have categorically stated that Late Arjun Hansda after death of his first wife, solemnized second marriage and the respondent no. 6 is son from his second wife and, hence, the appellant is found to be elder one and finding all these, the respondent no. 3 vide its order dated 21.02.2013 quashed and set aside the order dated 26.10.2004 passed by the respondent no. 4 and remanded the matter back to the office of respondent no. 4 to reconsider the case in terms of section 6 of Santhal Paragana Tenancy Supplementary Provision) Act, 1949 while considering the opinion and consent from the 16 Anna Raiyats in proper manner and to pass a reasoned order.

(viii) Further, against the order dated 21.02.2013, the respondent no. 6 preferred an appeal before the respondent no. 2 vide Rev. Misc. Appeal no. 58/2013-14, wherein absolutely a new story was formed and placed before the respondent no. 2 by the respondent no. 6 that said Late Arjun Hansda had first married with a lady but no child was being born from his wife, consequently he remarried another lady, from whom he got a son, i.e., the respondent no. 6, and then only sons were born to the first wife as well and the petitioner is son of the first wife. The respondent no. 6 alleged that all the documents submitted by the appellant are false.

(ix) Further, after hearing the parties the respondent no. 2 passed an order dated 24.01.2022 setting aside the order dated 21.02.2013 passed by the respondent no. 3 and upholding the order dated 26.10.2004 passed by the respondent no. 4 and finding the respondent no. 6 to be fit person for the post of Pradhan and appointed him Pradhan under section 6 of the Santhal Paragana Tenancy (Supplementary Provision) Act, 1949 read with Clause 3 of Schedule V of SPT Rules, 1950.

(x) The order 24.01.2022 passed by the respondent no. 2 is absolutely illegal and cryptic and based on false and concocted averments suggested by the respondent no. 6.

(xi) Further, before the respondent no. 2, the respondent no. 6 has framed a new story and the whole proceeding before the respondent no. 2 proceeded on the said false story.

(xii) The statements of the 16 Anna Raiyats were not considered who have categorically stated that the appellant was born from the first wife and after 2 years of the birth of the appellant, when the first wife died, then the father of the appellant solemnized second marriage and from second wife the respondent no. 6 was born.

(xiii) Further, the 16 Anna Raiyats have categorically stated while swearing affidavit that the appellant is elder son of Ex-Pradhan and he is a good man and fit to be appointed as Pradhan and all the 16 Anna Raiyats have given consent for the appointment of appellant as Pradhan for the Village Phulbaria, Godda.

(xiv) During the pendency of appeal before the respondent no. 3, the raiyats of the village Phulbaria, Godda gave their representation duly signed by them wherein they have categorically mentioned that the appellant is elder son of the his father and after death of first wife, the father of the appellant solemnized second marriage and birth of respondent no. 6 happened, all the raiyats wanted the appellant to be Pradhan of the village because he used to help them and stand by them in the village whereas the respondent no. 6 is a teacher and he is not a good man and he has dispute with several persons in the village and they further requested the respondent no. 3 to appoint the appellant as Pradhan for the village Phulbaria.

(xv) So far, the dispute of age of the appellant and respondent no. 6 is concerned, it is submitted that the appellant is elder to the respondent no. 6 and this can be evident from perusal of several documents which were also placed before the respondent authorities.

Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner has preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2513 of 2022 for quashing and setting aside the order of the appointing authorities, but the learned Single Judge vide its order dated 06.12.2022 has dismissed the writ petition.

To challenge the aforesaid order dated 06.12.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2513 of 2022 the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

It is evident from the factual aspect as narrated in the writ petition that both appellant and respondent no.6 are the sons of Late Arjun Hansda, who was the Village Headman of village-Phulbaria, Godda. After death of Arjun Hansda, the appellant and the respondent no.6 submitted their respective representation before the respondent no.4, who had called for a report from the respondent no.5, who in its report dated 21.06.2004, has mentioned that the respondent no.6 is the elder son of Ex-Village Headman, namely, Late Arjun Hansda and he is fit to be appointed for the post of Village Headman. Thereafter, after submission of the report dated 21.06.2004 by the respondent no.5, in the Court of the respondent no.4, again a report was called for from the respondent no.5 vide order dated 01.07.2004 passed in P.A Case No.47/2003-04 but the same was never received and the matter proceeded on the basis of report dated 21.06.2004 of the respondent no.5.

Thereafter, respondent no.4 vide its order dated 26.10.2004 appointed the respondent no.6 as Pradhan (Village Headman) of the village-Phulbaria, Godda under section 6 of the Act of 1949 read with Schedule V of Rule of 1950 and directed the respondent no.6 to deposit Kabuliyat and security for one year in the treasury.

Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the respondent no.3 in R.M.A No.70/2004-05 challenging the order dated 26.10.2004 of the respondent no.4. After having heard both the parties and after considering the documents produced by the parties, the respondent no.3 by its order dated 21.02.2013 had quashed and set aside the order dated 26.10.2004 passed by the respondent no.4 and remanded the matter back to the office of the respondent no.4 to reconsider the case in terms of section 6 of the Act of 1949 and considering the opinion and consent from the 16 Anna Raiyat in proper manner and to pass a reasoned order.

Thereafter, the respondent no.6 approached the Court of the respondent no.2 in Rev. Misc. Appeal No.-58/2013-14, who after having heard both the parties and on consideration of the factual aspect as well as the material available on record has passed an order on 24.01.2022 by setting aside the order dated 21.02.2013 passed by the respondent no.3 and upholding the order dated 26.10.2004 passed by the respondent no.4 and finding the appellant ( respondent no.6 herein) to be fit person for appointment on the post of Village Headman under section 6 of the Act of 1949 read with Clause 3 of Schedule V of Rule of 1950.

Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner/appellant has approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P(C) No. 2513 of 2022 which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 06.12.20222.

To challenge the order of the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner has preferred the present appeal for his appointment as Village Headman in village Phulbaria, Godda.

Submission on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner:

Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has taken the following grounds to assail the impugned judgment:

(i) The learned Single Judge has not considered the fact as well as the law urged and argued before him.

(ii) It has been contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the raiyat of the village-Phulbaria, Godda have their wish and they wanted to select the appellant as village Pradhan/ Headman as the respondent no.6 is a teacher and not a good man as he has disputes with several other persons of the village and the villagers requested the respondent no.3 to appoint the appellant as a “Pradhan” of the village-Phulbaria, Godda.

(iii) It has been contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the appellant is not matriculate and, hence the document, which are available to the appellant regarding Electoral Rolls, which is the certified copy of Electoral Rolls provided by the respondent, Ration Card and the Transfer Certificate issued for the St. Joseph Middle Schol, Barmasia, does suggest that the appellant is elder to the respondent no.6 but no credential has been given to the said documents so produced by the appellant as the respondent no.6 has shown his matriculation certificate.

(iv) It has been contended that in spite of several affidavits filed by the raiyats and representations given by other villagers with regard to parentage of the appellant who is the elder son whereas the respondent no.6 is the younger step brother of the appellant, the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the aforesaid fact and dismissed the writ petition.

(v) It has been contended that the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the fact that in terms of section 6 of Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 the respondent no.4, i.e., the Sub-Divisional Officer is not the competent officer/authority to pass any order for selection of Headman (Pradhan) of any village.

(vi) It has been contended that as per Section 5 of the Act of 1949 the Deputy Commissioner has right to appoint any raiyats as Village Headman for Khas village and this power has not been delegated to the respondent no.4 and, hence, the order passed by the respondent no.4 is arbitrary and illegal.

(vii) It has been contended that the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has not taken into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter and dismissed the writ petition, which is not as per the provision of section 5 of the Act of 1949 and, as such, the order passed by the learned Single Judge may be quashed and set aside.

(viii) It has been contended that the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the documents relied upon by the appellant, i.e., Transfer Certificate, Electoral Roll, Ration Card etc. rather has only considered the Matriculation Certificate of the respondent no.6 for determination of age which is not justified at all and, hence, the impugned order is fit to be quashed and set aside.

(ix) It has been contended that under the provision of section 6 of the Act of 1949 read with Rule 3 of Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary) Rules, 1950 for appointment of village head, on the basis of hereditary rights, the only requirement is that the candidate should be the son of the Ex-Pradhan, either elder or younger, as also he must have the consent of majority of Raiyats, but in the instant case, the learned Single Judge as well as the appointing authorities have not considered the said fact and on the basis of being the elder son of Ex-Village Headman, the respondent no.6 has been appointed as Village Headman, which is not in accordance with law and, as such, the impugned order is illegal and may be set aside.

(x) It has further been contended that prior to appointment of the respondent no.6 as “Village Headman” consent of the Raiyat has not been taken by the appointing authority and the said aspect of the matter has also not been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order and, thus, the said appointment is illegal and arbitrary.

The learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the impugned order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, therefore, suffers from an error and, as such, it is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Submission on behalf of the Respondents:

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State as also the respondent no.6 to defend the impugned order has raised the following grounds:

(i) There is no error in the impugned order, since, the appointing authority as well as the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the entire facts and after going through the age of the respondent no.6 more than that of the appellant as per the Matriculation Certificate, appointed him as “Village Headman”.

(ii) It has been contended that the learned Single Judge, therefore, has considered the said aspect of the matter and making a specific note that for the purpose of acknowledging the actual date of birth, the Matriculation Certificate can be said to be an authentic document, in comparison to Transfer Certificate, Electoral Roll and Ration Card, and passed the impugned order and, thus, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error.

(iii) It has been contended that the original appointing authority, revisional authority as well as the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the appointment of the respondent no.6 is legal one as he is elder than that of the appellant as per the Matriculation Certificate and, as such, impugned order cannot be said to suffer from an error.

The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, have submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge needs no interference and the present appeal is fit to be dismissed.

Analysis:

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment dated 06.12.2022 as also the material available on record.

After hearing the parties and on perusal of orders passed by the appointing authorities as well as the impugned judgment, the sole issues which arise for consideration before this court in the present appeal is:

“Whether the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer suffers from an error due to want of jurisdiction in the matter of appointment of “Village Headman” which has been stipulated under section 6 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949.”

Issue of competency/jurisdiction has been raised by the appellant raising the point that the Deputy Commissioner is only the competent authority to appoint village headman under of section 6 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949, read with Schedule V of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary) Rules, 1950. Since, the order dated 26.10 2004, has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 6 of the Act of 1949 read with Schedule V of Rules of 1950, but, this power has not been delegated to the Sub-Divisional Officer for the appointment of village headman.

It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that if the provisions as contained under section 6 of the Act of 1949 read with Schedule V of the Rules of 1950 will be taken up together, it will clarify that the Deputy Commissioner is the only competent authority to appoint the village headman.

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that there is no issue of any incompetency or jurisdiction, if the order has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, since, the Sub-Divisional Officer has been conferred with the power as per the Notification/Standing Order dated 26.05.1951 issued by the competent authority as appended in the counter affidavit as Annexure-B.

We, in order to appreciate the aforesaid argument, have thought it proper to refer the provision as applicable for the purpose of consideration of the said issue.

The appointment of “Village Headman” not in Khas village has been provided under section 6 of the Act of 1949, which is applicable in the facts of the present case, which are being quoted herein under as:

“6. Landlord to report the death of village headman. - When the village headman of a village which is not khas, dies the landlord of the village shall report the fact within three months of its occurrence to the Deputy Commissioner with a view to the appointment of a village headman in the prescribed manner”.

It is evident from the aforesaid provision that the Deputy Commissioner has been conferred with the power to appoint “Village Headman” as per mandate of the said section, i.e., Section 6. The allied provisions along with section 6 of the Act of 1949 is Rule 3(5) of the Rules of 1950, which is being referred hereunder as:

“Rules 3(5)- In making the appointments of headman under Section 5 or Section 6 the Deputy Commissioner shall, as far as possible, follow the rules prescribed in schedule V except where these rules, expressly or by necessary implication, provide otherwise.”

It is evident from the provision as contained under Sub-rule 5 of Rule 3 that in making the appointment of “Village Headman” under section 5 or section 6, the Deputy Commissioner, shall as far as possible, follow the rules prescribed in Schedule-V except where these rules expressly or by necessarily implications provides otherwise.

The Schedule-V of Rules of 1950, is also required to be referred herein wherein it has been provided as under the Clause-1 of Schedule-V that the appointment of “Village Headman” will be made in accordance with the village custom, and before confirming any appointment, the Deputy Commissioner shall satisfy himself that the candidate is generally acceptable to the raiyats, and an opportunity shall also, in every instance, be afforded to the proprietor to object to any candidate. The allied provisions of Schedule-V of the of the Rules of 1950, is quoted herein below-

SCHEDULE V

THE APPOINTMENT OF HEADMEN

In appointing headmen the following rules should be taken into consideration:-

The headman must be a resident of the village or his permanent home must be within one mile of the village.

The appointments of headman shall be made in accordance with village customs, and before confirming any appointment, the Deputy Commissioner shall satisfy himself that the candidate is generally acceptable to the raiyats, and an opportunity shall also in every instance, be afforded to the proprietor to object to any candidate.

No sub-division of the office of headman can be allowed or recognized unless: -

(a) there are different classes of raiyats in the village who have always been managed separately:

(b) such sub-division has been recognized at the last settlement.

The office of headman being hereditary, the next heir, who is fitted, should be head man. If the heir be a minor, he may be appointed headman with a Sarbrakhar to manage for him until he attains his majority. If no suitable Sarbrakhar can be found, the right of the minor lapses.

A person may be refused succession on the death of his father/mother if, for reasons to be recorded, he/she be considered unfit for the post.”

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant by taking aid of section 6 of the Act of 1949 read with Rule 3(5) of the Rule of 1950, and the Schedule-V therein, has submitted that since the word “Deputy Commissioner” has been referred and, as such, it is the Deputy

Commissioner who is only competent authority to appoint the “Village Headman”.

This Court in order to appreciate the aforesaid argument has gone through the definition of the word “Deputy Commissioner” as provided under section 4 (vii) of the Act of 1949 wherein the Deputy Commissioner has been defined, which reads herein as under:

“Deputy Commissioner” means the Deputy Commissioner of the Dumka, Sahibganj, Godda, Deoghar, Pakur and includes, -

(a) Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sub-divisional Officer or Deputy Collector, empowered by the State Government to discharge any of the functions of Deputy Commissioner under this Act; and

(b) any Deputy Collector, whom, subject to the control of the State Government, the Deputy Commissioner may, by general or special order, authorise to exercise any of his functions under this Act.”

As  per  the  aforesaid  definition  of  the  word  “Deputy Commissioner”, provided in section 4 (vii), the Deputy Commissioner means “the Deputy Commissioner of the districts comprising the Santhal Parganas Division (Dumka, Sahibganj, Godda, Deoghar, Pakur, and Jamtara) and includes (a) the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sub-Divisional Officer or Deputy Collector, empowered by the State Government to discharge any of the functions of the Deputy Commissioner under the SPT Act and (b) any Deputy Collector, whom the Deputy Commissioner may, subject to the control of the State Government, by general or special order, authorize to exercise any of his functions under this Act.

It is, thus, evident that the Deputy Commissioner also includes the Additional Deputy Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Officer or the Deputy Collector, but the separate notification is to be issued in their favour to exercise the power of the Deputy Commissioner.

Since, appellant has challenged the jurisdiction of Sub-Divisional Officer under section 6 of Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 read with Schedule-V of the Rules of 1950 and has contended that the Sub-Divisional Officer, is not the competent officer/authority to pass order under section 6 of the Act of 1949, for appointment of Headman (Pradhan) of a village.

In response, respondent has filed counter affidavit stating the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Officer to pass order under section 6 of the Act of 1949 and at paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit has categorically stated that in the Santhal Pargana Division, Section 6 of the S.P.T. Act, 1949 is vested with Sub-divisional Officer by standing order dated 26.05.1951 of Deputy Commissioner of Santhal Parganas in pursuance of Govt. notification no. II-T-245/50-2344, dated 20.03.1951. Paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit is quoted herein below-.

“The writ appellant has also challenged the jurisdiction of respondent no. 4, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda. It is pertinent to mention that in Santhal Pargana Division, Section 6 of the S.P.T. Act, 1949 is vested with Sub-divisional Officer by standing order dated 26.05.1951 of Deputy Commissioner of Santhal Parganas in pursuance of Govt. notification no. II-T-245/50-2344, dated 20.03.1951.”

The said standing order dated 26.05.1951, has been issued by the Deputy Commissioner, is annexed as Annexure-B of the counter affidavit. For ready reference, the standing order dated 26.05.1951, issued by the Deputy Commissioner is quoted hereunder as:

Deputy Commissioners’s order indicating the functions to be exclusively exercised by him and those to be exercised by the Subdivisional Officers

STANDING ORDER

In exercise of the power conferred on me by section 62 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provision) Act, 1949 (Bihar Act XIV of 1949) I order that in pursuance of the Government notification no. II T-245/50-2344, dated the 26th March 1951 the functions under the sections of the said Act as specified below in col. 1 of the schedule shall be excrcised by the Deputy Commissioner throughout the district and those under Col. II of the said schedule by the Subdivisional Officers within their respective jurisdictions.

1                                                                                              2  .

I                                                                                 II

Deputy Commissioner                               Subdivisional Officer

Sec.5, 14, 20 (5), 43, 47 (4) and (5),        16,19(2)(3)(a) and (b), (4), (5) 50,

53, and 67(2)                                                 and (6),20(1)21(1)(iv)(a) (4)and 6,

23(1) and (2), 24(3), 25(2), 26, 27, 29, 31,

32(1)(2) (a) and (b) 33, 34, 35, 38(2), 39, 42 and 52.

I further order that in the matters which are to be dealt with by the Deputy Commissioner, the Subdivisional Officers will receive all Petitions and applications, conduct preliminary enquiry and then submit the record with reports and observations to this Court where final order will be passed after hearing the parties, where necessary.

R. PRASAD, 26-5-1951.

Deputy Commissioner

On perusal of the aforesaid standing order dated 26.05.1951, which is annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, we find that in note no.1, there are two columns, column-1 and column-2 and in the standing order, it is noted that column-I of the schedule shall be exercised by the Deputy Commissioner throughout the district and those under column-II of the said schedule by the Subdivisional Officers within their respective jurisdictions.

In note-2 of the standing order, it is also noted that in the matters which are to be dealt with by the Deputy Commissioner, the Subdivisional Officers will receive all Petitions and applications, conduct preliminary enquiry and then submit the record with reports and observations to this Court where final order will be passed after hearing the parties, where necessary.

It appears from perusal of column-1 and column-2 of the standing order dated 26.05.1951, that neither in column- 1 nor in column-2, section 6 of the Act of 1949, is mentioned. Instead, section 19 sub-section 6 of the Act of 1949, is mentioned, but, section 19 relates to “Division of holding and distribution of rent”, which is not the subject matter in the present case.

The appellant has also not filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit in response to statement given by the state respondent at paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit as to jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Officer to pass order under section 6 of the Act of 1949 for appointment of Headman (Pradhan) of a village.

Under the circumstance, respondent no. 3, the Deputy Commissioner, Godda, shall verify whether in the standing order dated 26.05.1951, the Sub-Divisional Officer has been given power to decide matter under section 6 of the Act of 1949 for appointment of Headman (Pradhan) of a village, as stated by the State at paragraph- 7 of the counter affidavit or there is any other notification issued by the State Government conferring the power to the Sub-Divisional Officer under section 6 of the Act of 1949, with the power of Deputy Commissioner as provided in definition of ‘Deputy Commissioner’ under Section 4(vii) of the Act of 1949, to act as the appointing authority in appointment of the Village Headman in a village.

Thus, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, this court is of the view that since there is conspicuous ambiguity regarding the conferment of the power to the Sub-Divisional Officer under section 6 of the Act of 1949 in order to decide the appointment of “Village Headman” as such the matter is referred before the Deputy Commissioner, Godda to get it verified with respect to the issue of conferment of power upon the Sub-Divisional Officer within a period of three months as to who will decide the issue under section 6 of the Act of 1949 for appointment of “Village Headman”.

If the Deputy Commissioner, after getting it verified, comes to the conclusion that the State Government has appropriate notification by conferring power upon the Sub-Divisional Officer, then there is no need to pass order afresh.

However, if the Deputy Commissioner, on verification comes to the conclusion that no notification conferring power upon Sub-Divisional Officer has been passed by way of issuance of notification by the State Government, then the order dated 26.10.2004 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer will be treated to be quashed and set aside and in such circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner will pass appropriate/necessary order afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties.

It is once again made clear that the Deputy Commissioner shall exercise its power only in a case where the Sub-Divisional Officer, the day when the order was passed, has not been found to be vested with the power as referred hereinabove.

Accordingly, with the aforesaid direction and observation the instant appeal is hereby disposed of.

Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.