2026:JHHC:9858 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.2218 of 2026 ------ Premlata Hembrom, W/o Anil Agnetius Marandi, R/o Village Mayurbandh, P.O. + P.S. Maheshpur, District Pakur. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, P.O. + P.S. + District Dumka. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, P.O. + P.S. + District Pakur. 4. Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur, P.O. + P.S. + District Pakur. 5. Circle Officer, Maheshpur, P.O. + P.S. + District Maheshpur. 6. Anand Marandi, S/o Late Dinesh Marandi, R/o Village Mayurbandh, P.O. + P.S. Maheshpur, District Pakur. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Onkar Nath Tewary, Advocate Mr. Shamaiel Raza, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Suraj Prakash, Advocate ------ 02/ 07.04.2026 By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "for issuance of an appropriate Writ/s, Order/s, Direction/s for setting aside the order dated 28/10/2024 (Annexure-4) passed in R.M.(P.A.)R. No.-433/2023-24 by the Ld. Court of Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in which they in illegally and arbitrary manner affirmed the order dated 25/01/2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur in R.M.R. Case No.01/2018-19." 2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 3. The petitioner claims to be appointed as a "Village Pradhan" being the legal heir of the recorded tenant. She also raises 2026:JHHC:9858 2 objection over the appointment of respondent No.6 - Anand Marandi, whose father - Late Dinesh Marandi, was a "Village Pradhan". 4. It is the case of the petitioner that her father was the "Village Pradhan" before Late Dinesh Marandi. 5. After hearing the parties and going through the records of this case, I find that no case is made out for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is an extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 6. Who was the actual forefather and the Village Pradhan, is an absolute question of fact. Further, I find from the record that the father of respondent No.6 was the Pradhan, thus after his death, respondent No.6 has been made the "Pradhan", as he got the hereditary right. The post is admittedly hereditary. Further, the petitioner lost before both the Appellate Court and the Revisional Court, thus I find no infirmity in the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 07th April, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 16.04.2026