Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Appontment of a village hweadman of a khas village.- On the application of a raiyat or of landlord of any khas village and with the consent of at least two thirds of the jamabandi raiyats of the village ascertained in the manner prescribed, the Deputy Commissioner may declare that a headman shall be appointed for the village and shall then proceed to make the appointment in the prescribed manner. COMMENTS Sections 5 and 6- SPT Supplementary Rules, 1950, Rule 3(5)- New Headman- Appointment of- deceased Pradhan died leaving successor- Acceptability of- To be ascertained from the will of 2/3rd of Jamabandi Raiyatasnamely 16 anna raiyats- Failure to give due notice to al the Jamabandi raiyats-Decision of Deputy Commissioner unsustainable- Set Set aside- Command issued to service all the Jamabandi raiyats bty every attempt and thereafter pass order. [Mahipal Mishra v.State of Jharkhand, 2003 (2) JCR 401: 2003 (2) JLJR 274 (Jhr)]. Sections 5 and 6 and Santal Paraganas Tenancy (Supplementary) Rules, 1950, Rules 3, sub-rule (5)- Pradhan-Appointment of Pradhan-How to be made- Claim as appointed to be Pradhan- Is a subject to select a fit person for such appointment. [Jagdish Misra v. Chamaklal Mishra, 1965 BLJR 674]. Section 5- If on the date fixed requisite consent of two-third majority of the Jamabandi raiyat is not available under rule 3(1) further adjournment cannot be allowed, application is liable to be dismissed. [Banke Bihari Lal v.Commissioner, 1969 PLJR 492]. Sections 5 and 6- Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary) Rules, 1950, Rule 3-Appointment of Pradhan- Non-Khas village- Provisions of Section 6 of the Act attracted-Office is hereditary in nature- Next heir who is fit, is entitled to be the Headman- Sub divisional Officer competent to ascertain the views of Jamabandi raiyats of the village- Earlier matter remanded for compliance of Rule 3 on reconsideration –Reconsdiration has to be in terms of clauses 3 and 4 of the Schedule V of the rules- Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition did not understood the scope of remand order made earlier- Order modified- Direction issued to Sub-Divisional Officer to ascertain the views of the Jamabandi raiyats of village on the question of fitness to succeed to the post in terms of clauses 3 and 4 of Schedule V of the rules by proceeding uner rule 3(5). [Swarnlata Devi v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2003 (3) JCR 416 (Jhr)]. Sections 5,6 and 7 and Schedule 5 read with Santhal Parganas Tenancy Manual, 1911 (Pages 291 to 299)- Hereditary right in appointment- Affirmation by authority as village headman-Resident in village necessary to discharge his duties- short visit by headman illegal- Appointment on hereditary right of village headman illegal- Direction to initiate proceeding for appointment of village headman- illegal- Direction to initiate proceeding for appointment of village headman-From a perusal of the headman’s duties it is self-evident that for any meaningful discharge of those duties, it would be essential for the headman to permanently and regularly reside in the village in question and it would not be possible to discharge those duties satisfactorily in case he lived outside the village on Government postings and came to the vfillage only intermittently. The headman has, in fact, a long list of duties which can be duly discharged only by a person living in the concerned village. Thus, the result of his appointment would be that he would be enjoying the social status and prestige and he and his family members would be deriving the many benefits attached to that office but he would not be discharging most of the duties of the headman. In the light of the above discussion, the Court was of the considered view that only a person regularly residing in the village can be considered to be a suitable candidate for the office of the headman and respondent No. 5 notwithstanding his hereditary claim, is unfit for the office of headman for the simple reason that he is not living there regularly. In the Court’s opinion, therefore, the authorities acted erroneously in allowing his claim simply on the basis of hereditary right and directing for his appointment as headman. It as headman was bad and illegal. Before concluding it is to be observed that it has been found that the petitioner too has no hereditary claim to the office because his grandfather was dismissed from the office of hard man. The Apex Court accordingly direct the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka to initiate proceeding for appointment of village headman for the village in question as provided under Chapter 2, read with Schedule 5 of the Act. In case 2/3rd of the Jamabandi raiyats do not give their consent for appointment of a headman, the village MAY BE CONVERTED INTO A KHAS VILLAGE. [Babulal Hembrum v. State of Bihar, 1998 (1) PLJR 43: 1998 (1) ALL PLR 277 (Pat)].