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.