- (1.) This writ petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 28.11.2001 / 3.7.2002 / 5.7.2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda in R. M. A. No. 16/2001. By the impugned order, the said respondent has reviewed the earlier order passed by his predecessor and cancelled the fresh appointment of the petitioner as Village Pradhan. The short facts of the case are as follows: (i) One Tridev Sah, who was a duly appointed Pradhan of Mouza - Barhara, P.S. & Dist - Godda due to his old age and infirmity, appointed the petitioner as Karpardaz. (ii) Tridev Sah died leaving behind his two sons, namely, Biishwanath Sah and Neeraj Kumar Sah. Two sons of Trideo Sah had predeceased their father. The petitioner is the son of Budhi Nath Sah, who predeceased his father Trideo Sah. (iii) After the death of Trideo Sah, the petitioner and his two uncles, namely, Bishwanth Sah and Neeraj Kumar Sah filed applications in the prescribed forms before the Sub-divisional Officer, Godda for appointment as Pradhan of Mouza -Barhara. Subsequently, Bishwanath Sah withdrew his application and relinquished his claim in favour of Neeraj Kumar Sah. His withdrawal was accepted by the Sub-divisional Officer. The Sub-divisional Officer, Godda by his judgment / order dated 24.12.1996 allowed the application of Niraj Kumar Sah. (iv) Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Godda. (v) The Deputy Commissioner, Godda, by his judgment dated 13.7.1999, set aside the said order of the Sub-divisional Officer and remitted the matter to the Sub-divisional Officer, Godda for passing fresh order for appointment of Pradhan. (vi) The Deputy Commissioner found that the appointment of Neeraj Kumar Sah as Pradhan of Mouza - Barhara is contrary to the mandatory provisions of Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, particularly, against Schedule - V thereof. Neeraj Kumar Sah was not permanently residing within one mile of Mouza - Barhara. Since he is an employee of the Eastern Coalfield Ltd., a Central Government undertaking, he cannot discharge the duty and function of Pradhan. The Circle Officer being the landlord has recommended the name of the petitioner, as he is Class-I heir of the then Pradhan, Late Trideo Sah. He further held that since Bishwanth Sah has already relinquished his claim and another applicant Neeraj Kumar Sah is an employee of the Eastern Coal Field Ltd., the petitioner being an heir of the then Pradhan is fit to hold the post of Pradhan and in view thereof, a fresh order is to be passed by the Sub-divisional Officer. (vii) Thereafter, the Sub-divisional Officer, Godda considered all the facts, and materials on record including the opinion of the proprietor and held that the petitioner was found to be acceptable as Pradhan to all concerned. (viii) Against the said order of the Sub-divisional Officer, Bishwanath Sah and Neeraj Kumar Sah (respondent Nos. 4 & 5) filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Godda being R. M. A No. 16/2001. The Deputy Commissioner disposed of the petitioner's appeal by the impugned order dated 28.11.2001 setting aside the order dated 27.4.2001 of the Sub-divisional Officer, Godda and appointing Bishwanath Sah (respondent No. 4) as Pradhan of the said Mouza.
(2.) The said order of the Deputy Commissioner, Godda has been assailed mainly on the ground that the said order is contrary to the mandatory provisions of Schedule -V of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 [hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act']. The appointment of Village Pradhan has to be made with the consent of 16 Anna Raiyats of the Mouza, but there is no such consent in favour of the respondent No. 4. In his earlier order, the Deputy Commissioner had considered all the aspects and the provisions of law and the order was passed in favour of the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to recall the earlier order and pass a fresh contrary order. The impugned order was not passed in presence of the petitioner and the same is antedated and vitiated.
(3.) Mr. Jai Prakash Jha, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that by the earlier order, the Deputy Commissioner had decided almost all the controversies. There was no fresh material for reconsideration of the same. The impugned order has been passed without taking into consideration the mandatory provisions of the said Act. In the matter of appointment of Pradhan of the said Mouza, there is no valid ground for deviation from the earlier order. The enquiry report and the recommendations of the concerned authorities and learned Sub-divisional Officer were brushed aside. Learned counsel referred to the provisions of Schedule - V and submitted that the office of headman being hereditary, the next heir, who is fit, should be appointed as the headman. A person, who is unfit and who does not have general acceptance by the Raiyats, cannot be appointed.;