2026:JHHC:7663 --1-- W.P. (C.) No. 3087 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI W.P. (C.) No. 3087 of 2011 ---- 1. Chinta Devi, W/o Late Hari Prasad Khirhar, R/o village – Tarajora, PO – Jamtara, District – Dumka 2. Pawan Khirhar, S/o Late Hari Prasad Khirhar, R/o village – Tarajora, PO – Jamtara, District – Dumka 3. Rohit Khirhar, S/o Late Hari Prasad Khirhar, R/o village – Tarajora, PO – Jamtara, District – Dumka 4. Jeevesh Khirhar, S/o Late Hari Prasad Khirhar, R/o village – Tarajora, PO – Jamtara, District – Dumka 5. Tuntun Devi, W/o Suresh Mandal, D/o Late Hari Prasad Khirhar, resident of village – Barapalari, PO – Barapalari, District - Dumka 6. Kumkum Devi, W/o Subhash Panjiyara, D/o Late Hari Prasad Khirhar, resident of Raapur, PO – Pathergama, District - Godda .... Petitioners -- Versus -- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, having its office At + Post – Dumka, PS and District – Dumka 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka, having its office At + Post – Dumka, PS and District – Dumka 4. Mulinda Hansda, son of Late Gere Hansda, resident of village - Harinbahal, PO and PS -Jama, S.C. Pargodih, Sub-division and District - Dumka .... Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioners :- Mr. Durga Charan Mishra, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, Advocate ---- 11/19.03.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2026:JHHC:7663 --2-- W.P. (C.) No. 3087 of 2011 2. The prayer in the writ petition is made for quashing of the order dated 25.08.2010 passed by learned Deputy Commissioner, Dumka in R.M.A. Case No.91/2009-10 whereby the said case filed on behalf of respondent No.4 against the order dated 07.09.2009 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka in P.A. Case No. 16/2004-05 has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent State on instruction submits that subsequently the son of this petitioner has been appointed as village Pradhan under Section 6 of Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949. He further submits that this matter can be disposed of as infructuous. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the appointment of the son of the petitioner has been made this petition has become infructuous. 5. In view of the above submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed of as infructuous. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 19.03.2026 Sangam/