Budhanlal Pahan vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors.

Heard Mr. Shwetang Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Abhilash Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State and Mr. Harendra Kumar Mahato, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.7.

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying therein to direct the respondents to transmit the records appertaining to the settlement in the name of respondent no.7. The prayer is also made for direction upon the respondents to recognize the settlement of Balughat given by the petitioner by forming a valid Settlement Committee to be completely in accordance with law and thereafter to cancel and set aside the settlement of the said Balughat in the name of respondent no.7. The further prayer is made for direction upon the respondents to declare the petitioner to be the Pradhan of the village Garadih.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been elected as Pradhan by Gram Sabha according to the procedure and custom of the Munda community and according to the customary laws as envisaged in Section 8(3) of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001. He further submits that Aam Sabha had been called by the resolution and notice was issued from the officer of the Block Development Officer, Sonahatu, Ranchi by way of Annexure-1 and, thereafter, Aam Sabha held and the petitioner was elected as the Gram Pradhan of Village- Garadih by way of Annexure-2. He then submits that thereafter in terms of the norms, a meeting of Gram Sabha was called for looking into the affairs of the Balughat according to the Government direction and several resolutions were taken and according to resolution nos. 1 to 3, Steering Committee was constituted for looking after the affairs of the Balughat by way of Annexure-3. He next submits that when the dispute arose with regard to conduction of the Balughat, the Circle Officer, Sonahatu was pleased to write a letter to the Additional Collector, Ranchi, wherein, he stated for a direction about the name of the Gram Pradhan so that a resolution to that effect may be taken by the said Gram Sabha through the Gram Pradhan by way of Annexure-5. He also submits that there was a dispute with regard to the Gram Panchayat of the Village Garadih as in the list attached to the said annexure at serial no.29, the name of the Pradhan column was kept blank. He further submits that according to the custom and culture, the Gram Sabha was to be headed by Pahan and other name. He next submits that respondent no.7 was appointed as Gram Pahan of Garadih village against all norms and his name appears at serial no.29 i.e. Dinesh Pahan (respondent no.7) contained in Annexure-7. He submits that thereafter the petitioner appeared before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi vide letter dated 08.04.2010 stating therein that the appointment of Budhan Lal Pahan as Gram Pradhan of village Garadih was completely legal and the settlement of Balughat which was done by the Circle Officer was completely illegal. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has sought clarification from the Circle Officer. A letter dated 20.11.2008 was written by the Block Development Officer, Sonahatu to all Gram Pradhan of Sonahatu Block, wherein, respondent no.7 was shown to be the Gram Pradhan of Garadih village. He also submits that the Block Development Officer, Sonahatu called for a performance report from the Gram Pradhan, Garadih and in pursuance of that, a performance report was sent to the Block Development Officer, Sonahatu on the basis of which, the joint account was opened at Bank of India, Sonahatu Branch being Account No.3137. He further submits that vide letter dated 05.01.2012, respondent no.7 has been given direction to make settlement of the mining by depositing Rs.2,87,387/-. In these backgrounds, he submits that in violation of statutory provision made under the Panchayati Raj Act, 2001, respondent no.7 has been appointed as Gram Pradhan of Garadih village and in view of that, this writ petition may kindly be allowed and appropriate order may kindly be passed.

Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that as per the Government instructions, the settlement of Balughat is done by the Committee constituted in the Gram Sabha of the revenue village. He further submits that the settlement of Balughat of the village Garadih for the year 2012-13 has been settled with Sri Dinesh Pahan by the District Mining Officer, Ranchi, which is apparent from the letter dated 03.02.2012, contained in Annexure-D to the counter affidavit of the State. He further submits that the respondent no.7 is discharging the work of the Gram Pradhan of the revenue village Garadih under the traditional culture and custom of the Munda community being the eldest side member of the recorded tenant, Mohar Singh Munda. He next submits that the settlement of Balughat of village Garadih was done with respondent no.7 by the District Mining Officer, Ranchi. He also submits that Gram Sabha of village Garadih was held on 26.03.2012 under the chairmanship of respondent no.7 in which proposal no.1 has been brought that respondent no.7 will perform the village Puja and other Puja of the village as Pahan, contained in Annexure-C of the counter affidavit. He then submits that the Gram Sabha of the village Garadih has been conducted by respondent no.7 since 2008 as traditional Gram Pradhan of the village. On these grounds, he submits that there is no illegality and in view of that, this writ petition may kindly be dismissed.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.7 submits that village Garadih is under Sonahatu Block of Ranchi district which comes under the Scheduled area and guided by the 5^th Schedule of the Constitution. So far the social administration is concerned, it is noteworthy that the village is guided by traditional customs and as per Section 127 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, the village headman functions as per the tradition. He further submits that the ancestors of respondent no.7 have functioned as village Pradhan and, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has notified the name of respondent no.7 to function as Gram Pradhan vide Annexure-7 of the writ petition. He next submits that in the meeting respondent no.7 has been appointed as Gram Pradhan considering his genealogy. On these grounds, he submits that there is no illegality in appointment of respondent no.7 and in view of that, this writ petition may kindly be dismissed.

In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the annexures and finds that the Aam Sabha was conducted in which respondent no.7 was found to be legal heir/successor of earlier Gram Pradhan as ancestors of respondent no.7 have functioned as Gram Pradhan of the said village and it was also recorded in proposal no.1 that respondent no.7 was performing village Puja and other Puja of the village as Pahan and the Gram Sabha of the said village has been conducted by respondent no.7 since 2008 as traditional Gram Pradhan of the said village.

Further, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has enquired about the Gram Pradhan from the Circle Officer, Sonahatu, Ranchi and after enquiry, it has been found that the ancestors of respondent no.7 were doing the rituals as per tradition of the said village.

In the enquiry report contained in Annexure-A of the counter affidavit filed by the State, genealogy table has been disclosed, which is quoted herein below:

In the enquiry report, it has come in light of genealogy table that the petitioner and respondent no.7 were legal heirs/successors of Mohar Singh Pahan, who had functioned earlier as Gram Pradhan, however, in the said enquiry report, it has come in light of resolution no.4 that respondent no.7 was having eldest side hereditary right and in view of that, respondent no.7 has been appointed as Gram Pradhan.

Further, the claim is with regard to entitlement of Gram Pradhan and the petitioner and respondent no.7, both are legal heirs of Mohar Singh Pahan and respondent no.7 has been recommended as Gram Pradhan considering his eldest side hereditary right. Such dispute cannot be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and for that dispute, the aggrieved party is required to move before the competent court of civil jurisdiction to decide the said dispute.

Section 127 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act prescribes the procedure of Village Headman. Sub-section (iii) of Section 8 of Jharkhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2001 further prescribes the procedure of choosing Headman. In light of Gram Sabha, it transpires that the procedure prescribes under Sub-section (iii) of Section 8 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act has been followed.

A reference may be made to the judgment passed in the case of Baisakhi Harijan v. State of Bihar, reported in 1995 BBCJ 131, wherein, appointment of village headman has been considered and it has been held that even in a case where there are two applicants; one on the basis of hereditary right and the other on the basis of election, the Sub Divisional Officer or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, has to first consider the case of a person who claims on the basis of hereditary right.

In light of the above reasons and analysis, there is no illegality in appointment of respondent no.7 as Gram Pradhan of village Garadih and, as such, this writ petition is, hereby, dismissed.

It is open to the petitioner that if he is still aggrieved in view of the said dispute, he may take recourse by moving before the competent Court of civil jurisdiction.