Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SHEAPUJAN BHAGAT
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THAKUR HEMBORM & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/11/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Though notice was sent to the legal representatives of
the contesting respondents, the acknowledgment has not been
received. Therefore, it must be deemed to have been served.
The only question for consideration is: whether the
respondent should be appointed as a headman under Section 5
of the Santal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions)
Act, 1949 (Bihar Act 14 of 1949) (for short, ‘Act’) by
virtue of hereditary right or by election? It is seen that
the village headman, by name Hari Hembrom, had resigned in
1950 as a headman and, thereafter, no appointment of the
headman was made. In the meanwhile, the village has become
khas village within the meaning of Section 1(ix) of the Act.
Resultantly, when an application was made by the Raiyats of
the village, the Assistant Commissioner had directed to
conduct the election in which the appellant was declared the
successful candidate. When the respondent challenged the
election before the authority, a remand order was passed.
The appellant filed a revision before the Commissioner. The
Commissioner accepting the contentions of the appellant set
aside the order of appointment. When writ petition was filed
against that order, the High Count by the impugned order had
held that appointment should be made as far as possible
under the hereditary principle. In case the candidate in the
line of succession on hereditary principle is unavailable,
them the election requires to be done. The question,
therefore, is : whether the view taken by the High Court is
correct in law? Section 4(ix) defines "Khas village", as a
village in which there is no mulraiyat (headman) nor for the
time being any village headman irrespective of whether there
was not previously a mulraiyat or village headman in the
village. Section 5 provides that on an 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 headman shall be appointed for
the village and shall then proceed to make the appointment
in the prescribed manner.
The question then is: whether a person from different
village can contest the election for headman? It is seen
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
that a reading of the provisions does not indicate that a
stranger to the village is intended to be elected as a
headman. In this case, the appellant is right that the
principle of hereditary succession does not arise. It would
arise only with the incumbant dies and his successor is
available; in such a situation, under the scheme of the Act,
the headmanship is required to be given to his son. In this
case, since Hari Hembrom had already resigned voluntarily,
the question of hereditary succession does not arise.
Admittedly, the appellant is not from the same village.
Therefore, he cannot claim the right of appointment. The
Commissioner, therefore, is directed to hold a regular
election in accordance with prescribed procedure and read
with Section 5 of the Act.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.