2026:JHHC:11183 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 4771 of 2022 ….….. Sarlu Mandal, aged about 60 years, son of Late Hari Mandal, resident of village-Tarajora, P.O. and P.S. Sonaraithari, District-Deoghar, Jharkhand. ..… Petitioner (s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, having its office at HEC, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Paragana Division, Dumka, P.O. and P.S. Dumka, District Dumka, Jharkhand. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O. and P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar, Jharkhand. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar, P.O. and P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar, Jharkhand. 5. The Circle Officer, Sarawan, P.O. and P.S. Sarawan, District Deoghar, Jharkhand. 6. Pawan Kumar Mandal son of Late Jitan Mandal, resident of Village Tarajora, P.O. and P.S. Sonaraithari, District Deoghar, Jharkhand. 7. 16 Anna Raiyat of Village Tarajora, P.O. and P.S. Sonaraithari, District Deoghar, Jharkhand. ..... Respondent(s) ….….. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ….… For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K.Choudhary, Advocate For the Resp.-State (s): Mr. Varun Prabhakar, A.C. to G.P.-III For the Resp. No.6 : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate ….….. C.A.V. ON 25/03/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:16 /04/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- 2026:JHHC:11183 2 (i) For issuance of appropriate writ (s), order(s), direction(s) for quashing the order dated 17.01.2022 (Annexure-4 to this writ application) passed by the Learned Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka,in R.M.A. No. 02 of 2009-10, whereby and whereunder by the aforesaid order, the Learned Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Paragana Division, Dumka, has been pleased to allow the appeal filed against the order dated 09.01.2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar (respondent no.3) in R.M.A. No. 101 of 2005-06, reversing the order passed in P.A. Case No. 01 of 2005-06 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Pradhani Appointment Case No. 23/2002-03 was registered at the instance of the father of Respondent No. 6, pursuant to which a report was submitted by the Circle Officer, Sarawan (Respondent No. 5) on 02.07.2003. In the said report, the village Tarajora within Block Sarawan was considered a Khas village. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application, being P.A. Case No. 01 of 2005-06, praying for his appointment as the village Pradhan (headman). This petition was allowed on 2.12.2005 (Annexure 2). 4. The father of Respondent No. 6 assailed the aforesaid order by filing an appeal, registered as RMA No. 101 of 2005-06, before Respondent No. 3 (i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar). The said appeal was allowed vide order dated 09.01.2009 (Annexure-3), by which Respondent No. 3 set aside the order dated 02.12.2005 and directed Respondent No. 4, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar to pass an order and proceed in accordance with section 5 of 2026:JHHC:11183 3 the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1949. 5. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 09.01.2009, passed in RMA No. 101 of 2005-06, the father of Respondent No. 6 preferred a second appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka (Respondent No. 2), which was registered as Revenue Mis. Appeal No. 2 of 2009-10. Respondent No. 2, vide order dated 17.1.2022 (Annexure 4), was pleased to set aside the order dated 09.01.2009. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, in the meantime, Respondent No. 4, in terms of the order dated 09.01.2009, initiated proceedings for the appointment of Pradhan as per Section 5 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1949. After following due procedure of law, the petitioner was appointed as the Pradhan vide order dated 21.5.2009 (Annexure-5). The appeal preferred by the father of Respondent No. 6 against the order dated 21.5.2009, being RMA No. 68 of 2009-10, was dismissed on 05.01.2018 (Annexure-6). A writ petition, WP(C) 1986 of 2019, which was filed against the order dated 05.01.2018, was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 07.09.2022. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka 2026:JHHC:11183 4 (Respondent No. 2), on 17.1.2022 in Revenue Mis. Appeal No. 2 of 2009-10 was wholly without jurisdiction and has been passed without considering the facts and the law laid down by this Court. It had been submitted that as the village of Tarajora was a Khas village, the appointment of Pradhan, must be in accordance with Section 5 of the Santhal Parganas Act, 1949. The appointment of the petitioner is in accordance with law, and it is owing to the impugned order that the petitioner cannot perform his duty, even after his legitimate appointment vide the order dated 21.05.2009. 8. Per contra, the Ld. Senior Counsel representing Respondent No. 6 and the counsel for the State of Jharkhand has submitted that the post of Pradhan is a hereditary post and the Respondent, being the heir of the eldest son of the eldest son of the last Pradhan, has a right to be appointed as the Pradhan. Ld. Sr. Counsel had further submitted that there was no occasion to adopt the procedure as prescribed under Section 5 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1949, when an eligible male heir is present. He has disputed the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner happens to be the younger son of the last Pradhan. It has also been submitted that as the action of 2026:JHHC:11183 5 the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar, was pertaining to the same subject matter and the same was sub-judice before Respondent No. 2, the order dated 17.1.2022 automatically eclipses the appointment of the petitioner as Pradhan vide order dated 21.5.2009. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the documents on record, the following issues are necessary for adjudicating the lis raised in the instant writ petition: - a. Whether the appeal filed before Respondent No. 2 was maintainable under the provisions of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1949 ? b. Whether the impugned order dated 17.1.2022 passed in Revenue Misc Appeal No. 2 of 2009-10 patently illegal ? 10. Coming to the first issue, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is that the second appeal filed by the father of Respondent No. 6, was de hors the provision of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1949, as a second appeal was not maintainable. He had submitted that an appeal is a creature of statute and, as such, a second appeal could not have been filed before Respondent No. 2, in absence of such a provision. 11. Opposing the same, the Ld. Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 6 had submitted that the appeal was 2026:JHHC:11183 6 maintainable under Section 58 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1949. 12. It is settled law that an appeal is a creature of statute, and no appeal can be entertained by any quasi- judicial or judicial authority if the same is not provided in the statute. Section 58 of the Act, 1949, provides that a second appeal could have been filed before the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions. Section 58 of the Act, 1949, is reproduced as under: - “ 58.⁠ ⁠Second Appeal. - (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 59 with respect to revision, an appellate order shall be final in all cases where the decision of the lower Court is affirmed, and no second appeal shall be allowed except when the Sub-divisional Officer, the Additional Deputy Commissioner has varied the decision of the lower Court, in which case an appeal shall lie, - (a) when the appellate order was made by a Sub- divisional Officer vested with appellate power, to the Deputy Commissioner: Provided that the Deputy Commissioner shall have power to order any such appeal to be transferred to the file of the Additional Deputy Commissioner empowered in this behalf; (b) when the appellate order was made by the Deputy Commissioner or the Additional Deputy Commissioner, to the Commissioner. (2) No second appeal shall lie from any order passed on appeal by the Commissioner or by the tribunal appointed under clause (d) of Section 57.” 13. In the case at hand, the first order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar, on 2.12.2005 in PA Case No. 01 of 2005-06. This order was overturned on appeal by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, through its 2026:JHHC:11183 7 order dated 9.1.2009 in RMA No. 101 of 2005-06. Given these facts, a second appeal could be entertained by Respondent No. 2 under Section 58(1)(b) of the Act, 1949. The first issue is accordingly decided in favour of Respondent No. 6. 14. Coming to the second issue, which is the main issue of the instant writ petition; it is evident that the report dated 2.7.2003 shows that village is a Khas village. However, it has been contended by the father of Respondent No. 6 that the village is Pradhani in nature. The impugned order also records the village to be a Khas village. 15. In order to ascertain the legality of the impugned order, it is important to determine the nature of the village. Section 4 (ix) of the Act, 1949 defines the term ‘Khas village’. The same is reproduced as under: - “ (ix) Khas village' means a village in which there is no mulraiyat nor for the time being any village headman irrespective of whether there was or was not previously a mulraiyat or village headman in the village.” 16. The latter part of the definition makes it clear that to ascertain if a village is Khas or Pradhani, it is to be seen if there is currently a headman in the village. In absence of a headman, the village becomes khas, even if there was a headman in the past. The parties have not disputed the fact that the last pradhan was appointed 2026:JHHC:11183 8 several years back, and at the time when the appointment was to be done, there was no pradhan. This fact is also clear from the report of the Circle Officer, Sarawan; the relevant portion of the report is reproduced as under: In light thereof, the legality of the impugned order is to be seen, keeping in mind that the village Tarajora is a Khas village. 17. The interpretation of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1949, along with the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Rules, 1950, for the appointment of a village Pradhan, in a Khas and Pradhani village was laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Alamuni Hansda v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors (W.P. (C) Nos. 3164 of 2005). In this case, the Court clarified that the procedure of appointment of a village headman (Pradhan) is different for a Khas village and a Pradhani village. The judgment categorically states once a legal heir is unavailable, the village reverts to being a Khas village and, in such cases, the procedure prescribed under Section 5 of 2026:JHHC:11183 9 the Act, 1949 must be followed. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under: “ The unavailability of an heir or a fit heir to succeed to the office of village headman makes the village to be converted into a khas village and thereafter the process to be followed for appointment would be in terms of Section 5 of the SPT Act i.e. either the raiyats or the landlord have to make an application to the Deputy Commissioner for declaring the khas village into a pradhani village. It is only after due notice in Form A as per Rule 3(1) and ascertainment of the consent of two-thirds of the recorded jamabandi raiyats that the Deputy Commissioner can declare the said khas village again as a pradhani village whereafter the process of appointment as stipulated under Sub- rule 3(1) to (4) read with Clause 1 of Schedule V of the SPT Rules have to be followed for appointment of the village headman/Pradhan of that village. In the case of Sheapujan Bhagat versus Thakur Hembrom (Supra), the Apex Court also noted that the village in question became a khas village after the resignation of the village headman as thereafter no appointment of a village headman was made. Therefore, it is beyond any cavil that a Pradhani village in absence of a successor has to revert to a khas village and once that happens in the event, a village headman is to be appointed, the procedure prescribed therefore must be followed. It is thus clear that the procedure for the appointment of a village headman in a khas village and a pradhani village are exhaustively dealt with by the SPT Act, the SPT Rules and Schedule V to the SPT Rules and the process of appointments of the two kinds of villages are distinct and different.” 18. The order dated 09.01.2009, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, in RMA No. 101 of 2005- 06, records the village as a Khas village and goes on to direct that the appointment of the village headman has to be in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 5 of the Act, 1949. The subsequent order also dated 21.05.2009 (Annexure 5), by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar, show that the appointment of the petitioner was 2026:JHHC:11183 10 made in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Act, 1949, and the Rules, 1950. 19. Meanwhile, the impugned order, sets aside the order dated 02.12.2005. The reason behind the order is primacy to the hereditary right. The relevant portion of the impugned order is as under: “……Mouza-. Tarajora, within P.S- Sonarithari, Anchal- Sarwan, District- Deoghar is a Pradhani Village and one Jatar Mandal was the recorded Pradhan of this Mouza and after his death, no formal step, has been taken by the heir of said Pradhan and for a long period the Mouza remained to be treated as Khas, but as per decision passed by Hon'ble High Court if the heir pradhan filed an application U/s 6 of the S.P.T Act. 1949, his case has to be considered first U/s 6 of the S.P.T Act and if he is found unfit for the post then only procedure for appointing a pradhan by selection U/s 5 of the S.P.T Act 1949. has to be taken.””” 20. This observation runs contrary to the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court. This Court in the case of Alamuni Hansda (supra), has held that in the case of Khas village the procedure under Section 5 of the Act, 1949, has to be adopted. The Court has also held that the procedure under Sections 5 and Section 6 of the Act, 1949, cannot be done simultaneously, as a village cannot be Khas and Pradhani at the same time. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under: “ 24. I now proceed to examine the procedure for appointment of village headman/Pradhan of a pradhani village or a village other than khas village in terms of Section 6, read with Rule 3 and Schedule-V prescribed there under. Under Section 6, after the death of a village headman/Pradhan in a pradhani village, it is the duty of the landlord to report the same within a period of three months of its occurrence to the Deputy Commissioner, so that appointment of the next village headman can be made in 2026:JHHC:11183 11 the prescribed manner. Rule 3(5) of the SPT Rules, in particular, specifically provides that in making the appointment of a headman both under Section 5 as well as Section 6 of the SPT Act, the Deputy Commissioner shall follow the rules prescribed in the Schedule as far as it is possible, except where the rules, expressly or by necessary implication, provides otherwise,. There are no other provisions except the above under the Act and the Rules regarding appointment of village headman of a pradhani village. Clause 3 of Schedule V provides that the office of headman is hereditary and the next heir, who is fit, should be appointed as the headman. The legal position that the office of headman is hereditary, is no more res-integra or open to question in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheapujan Bhagat v. Thakur Hembrom [MANU/SC/1016/1997 : (1997) 1 SCC 529]. The right to be appointed to the post of village headman on the basis of hereditary rights have been also held in series of judgments of the Patna High Court as well as this Court. However, while dealing with the issue regarding hereditary right to be appointed to the post of village headman, certain observations have been made which do not appear to be in consonance with the provisions of the SPT Act and the SPT Rules. In terms of Schedule V Rule-3, the next heir who is fit should succeed to the post of village headman on the death or on resignation of the previous village headman. However, the said right is not absolute and a person may be refused succession on the death of his father/mother, if he/she is considered unfit for the post and reasons for such refusal are recorded in writing. A bare perusal of Sub-clause 3 of Rule 4 of Schedule-V leaves no iota of doubt that the line of succession flows both to the male and female gender in view of the specific expressions 'father/mother' and 'he/she' used in the said Clause. However, unlike the appointment of a village headman of a khas village in terms of Clause 1 of Schedule-V, while appointing a village headman in terms of Clause 3 read with Clause 4, the statutory provisions are silent as to whether any village custom is to be followed in case of hereditary appointment to the post of village headman. (…) 31. In the event a successor is not found, then in such an event the pradhani village reverts back to a khas village. In the judgments rendered in the case of Thakur Hembrom (Supra), Baisakhi Harijan (Supra) and Babu Lal Mandal (Supra), the High Court of Patna and this Court have held that only after a claim to be appointed on the basis of hereditary rights is refused or rejected, the process for election of a village headman under Section 5 and the applicable rules will be vitiated. However, the said decisions seek to endorse the view that two applications, one on the basis of hereditary right and the other one on the basis of election can be made simultaneously. Such a view is untenable in law as a village cannot be a khas and a pradhani at the same point of time and there is no question of entertaining two such applications simultaneously 2026:JHHC:11183 12 33. In my respectful opinion, the above observations of the Division Bench are erroneous and appear to have been arrived on a misreading of the statutory provisions. A hereditary right is not just a preferential right, but it is a vested right which cannot be taken away lightly. The unavailability of an heir or a fit heir to succeed to the office of village headman makes the village to be converted into a khas village and thereafter the process to be followed for appointment would be in terms of Section 5 of the SPT Act i.e. either the raiyats or the landlord have to make an application to the Deputy Commissioner for declaring the khas village into a pradhani village. It is only after due notice in Form A as per Rule 3(1) and ascertainment of the consent of two- thirds of the recorded jamabandi raiyats that the Deputy Commissioner can declare the said khas village again as a pradhani village whereafter the process of appointment as stipulated under Sub-rule 3(1) to (4) read with Clause 1 of Schedule V of the SPT Rules have to be followed for appointment of the village headman/Pradhan of that village. In the case of Sheapujan Bhagat versus Thakur Hembrom (Supra), the Apex Court also noted that the village in question became a khas village after the resignation of the village headman as thereafter no appointment of a village headman was made. Therefore, it is beyond any cavil that a Pradhani village in absence of a successor has to revert to a khas village and once that happens in the event, a village headman is to be appointed, the procedure prescribed therefore must be followed. It is thus clear that the procedure for the appointment of a village headman in a khas village and a pradhani village are exhaustively dealt with by the SPT Act, the SPT Rules and Schedule V to the SPT Rules and the process of appointments of the two kinds of villages are distinct and different. (emphasis added) 21. In light of the fact that the village Tarajora within Block Sarawan is a Khas village, this Court is having no hesitation in holding that the appointment of Pradhan has to be done in terms of Section 5 of the Act, 1949. 22. Once the procedure under Section 5 of the Act, 1949, is adopted, primacy cannot be given to the heir of the Pradhan for the obvious reason that at the relevant point of time there was no Pradhan. 2026:JHHC:11183 13 23. The Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, by virtue of the order dated 17.01.2022, seeks to run the procedure prescribed under Section 5 and Section 6 of the Act, 1949, simultaneously. This is impermissible in law and runs contrary to the judgement laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Alamuni Hansda (supra). 24. As such, the order dated 17.01.2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka (Respondent No. 2), in Revenue Mis. Appeal No. 2 of 2009-10 is quashed and set aside and this Court has no hesitation in holding that Section 5 of the Santhal Pargana Act, 1949 will be applicable for the appointment of Pradhan in the case at hand. 25. Consequently, the instant writ petition is hereby allowed. Pending IAs, if any, are closed. No order as to cost. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:16 /04/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R Uploaded on 20.04.2026