CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2025) 07 JH CK 1206

Chhoto Murmu vs State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 10 July 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
W.P. (C) No. 4514 Of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 339 words

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

1.

Instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.03.2005 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka in RMA Case No.116/1993-94 whereby and whereunder a direction was made to proceed for appointment of Village Pradhan at Village Sindurpur under Section 5 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949.

2.

The short question raised in this writ petition is whether the said village is a Pradhani Village or a Khas Village, meaning thereby, whether Section 5 or Section 6 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act will apply? As per the petitioner, it was a Pradhani Village therefore, Section 5 will have no application.

3.

Petitioner has a statutory remedy under Section 59 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act to prefer a revision before the learned commissioner, which has not been availed. Further, it has been pointed out that from supplementary counter affidavit dated 09.04.2025, it will be evident that the other side had moved before the Commissioner in RMR No.37/2010-11, from which it will be evident that the said revision was pending till 13th March, 2025.

4.

Learned counsel on behalf of petitioner submits that there is no material to show that the said revision is still pending.

5.

Having considered the submissions advanced, it is apparent that the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy in the form of revision which has not been availed before filing of the instant writ petition. Further, a revision arising from the same impugned order was also preferred by the petitioner. Petitioner has an option either to intervene in the said revision, if pending, or to prefer a separate revision against the impugned order instead of pursuing the matter before this Court.

6.

Under the circumstance, writ petition is not maintainable which is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative statutory remedy. If the RMR No.37/2010-11, is still pending, the said revision be disposed of within eight weeks of the order after hearing the petitioner in the said revision. Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.