SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 1877

G.B.PATTANAIK, K.RAMASWAMY
Sheapujan Bhagat – Appellant
Versus
Thakur Hembrom – Respondent


ORDER

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.

2. 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, the 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 4(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,




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top