Binod Kumar Hansda vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 05.09.2019 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.4 in P.A. Case No. 43/2011-12, who in violation of the order dated 06.09.2018 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.2 in R.M.R. No. 92/2016-17 (Salim Hansda Vs. Hawasar Hansda), has ordered for appointment of the respondent No.5 as the Pradhan of the Village-Tarabandh contrary to the provisions of Section 6 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1949'] read with Rule 3 and Schedule-V of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary) Rules, 1950 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1950'].

The brief facts of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner's father-Salim Hansda was appointed as the Pradhan of Mouza-Tarabandh by the respondent No.4 vide order dated 19.03.2012 exercising his jurisdiction under Section 6 of the Act, 1949. Thereafter, the petitioner's father was granted Patta under Schedule-III of the Rules, 1950 on 20.04.2012. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the respondent No.4, the respondent No.5 preferred R.M.A. Case No. 12/2012-13 in the Court of the respondent No.3 which was disposed of vide order dated 24.11.2015 remanding the matter to the respondent No.4 to reconsider the issue in the light of the allegation levelled against the petitioner's father and after enquiry, to appoint the Pradhan of the said Mouza in accordance with law. The petitioner's father challenged the order dated 24.11.2015 passed by the respondent No.3 by preferring R.M.R. No. 92/2016-17 before the respondent No.2, who vide order dated 06.09.2018, did not admit the said revision due to the reason that the case, on being remanded by the respondent No.3, was pending before the respondent No.4 for his consideration. According to the petitioner, his father subsequently died on 28.08.2019. In support of the said fact, the petitioner has annexed a copy of the death certificate of his father as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 passed the impugned order dated 05.09.2019 in P.A. Case No. 43/2011-12 by reasons of which the respondent No.5 was appointed as the Pradhan of the said Mouza. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the direction of the respondent No.4 while preparing the enquiry report by the Circle Officer, Jama, the petitioner was not provided any opportunity to present his case. Moreover, since the petitioner's father died before passing the impugned order dated 05.09.2019 by the respondent No.4, the said order was in fact passed against a dead person making the same to be a nullity in the eye of law.

Learned A.C to S.C-III appearing on behalf of the State-respondents submits that even if the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted that the impugned order dated 05.09.2019 passed by the respondent No.4 in P.A. Case No. 43/2011-12 is unlawful, it cannot be said that the said order was passed without jurisdiction. Since the petitioner has got alternative/efficacious remedy of preferring appeal before the respondent No.3 against the order dated 05.09.2019 passed by the respondent No.4, the present writ petition is not maintainable at this stge.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner has got alternative/efficacious remedy of preferring appeal before the respondent No.3 against the order dated 05.09.2019 passed by the respondent No.4 in P.A. Case No. 43/2011-12, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition at this stage.

The petitioner is however at liberty to prefer an appeal before the respondent No.3 against the order dated 05.09.2019 passed by the respondent No.4 in P.A. Case No. 43/2011-12. If the petitioner prefers an appeal before the respondent No.3 along with an application for condonation of delay, if any occurred in preferring the said appeal, within a period of four weeks from today, the respondent No.3 shall liberally consider the limitation application of the petitioner and shall dispose of the said appeal in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent No.5, preferably within a period of four months from the date of filing of the said appeal.

The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid liberty and direction.