1. This appeal is filed by respondent No. 3 in WP (C) No. 3064 of 2001 of the file of this Court. That writ petition was filed by her challenging the recognition or appointment of the appellant as Pradhan of village Kurma in the district of Godda under the provisions of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary) Provisions Act, 1949. One Nageshwar Mishra was the Pradhan. He died on 16.7.1981. On 9.12.1982, the appellant, the eldest daughter of Nageshwar Pradhan, was appointed as the Pradhan. A rival claim to the post of Pradhan was raised by respondent No. 3 herein. The order of the authority recognizing the appellant as Pradhan was challenged in an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Godda. The appellate authority set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and remanded the case for a fresh consideration after issuance of notices to the raiyats in Form A. The order of the appellate authority was upheld in revision by the Commissioner, Santhal Parganas Division, Dumka, by his order dated 1.8.1994. There was further challenge to that order before the High Court of Judicature at Patna in CWJC No. 7892 of 1994. The High Court at Patna by judgment dated 7.4.2000, refused to interfere since the matter had only been remanded. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it thought it desirable to direct the Sub-Divisional Officer to take a decision about the appointment of the village Pradhan in accordance with law and after due notices to the raiyats as prescribed under Rule 3 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary) Rules, 1950.

2. Subsequent to the said direction, by order dated 1.6.2001, the Sub- Divisional Officer, Godda, appointment the appellant, the eldest daughter of Nageshwar Mishra, as the Pradhan of the village. The said order was directly challenged before this Court by respondent No. 3 herein essentially on the ground that the Sub-Divisional Officer had not issued notices to all the raiyats as directed by the High Court while passing the order and hence the order was illegal and unsustainable. Though an objection was raised on behalf of the appellant and the writ petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy under the Act and hence it was not a case for exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same was brushed aside by the learned Single Judge. Taking the view that notices to all the Jamabandi raiyats of the village was necessary, the learned Single Judge set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and remanded the proceeding to the Sub- Divisional Officer for a fresh decision after notices to all the raiyats. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, the appellant who was appointed as Pradhan by the Sub-Divisional Officer, has filed this appeal.

3. The main contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the village in question was a Pradhani village and not a khas village and hence Section 5 of the Act had no application and Section 6 thereof was attracted and the elaborate procedure for ascertaining the consent of the Jamabandi raiyats need not be followed and, in any event, in the case on hand, there was adequate notice by the Sub-Divisional Officer who passed the order recognizing or appointing the appellant as the Pradhan and in that situation, the learned Single Judge was in error in interfering with the appointment of the appellant as the Pradhan. This is met by counsel for the contesting respondent by contending that the parties are bound by the order of remand by the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 7892 of 1994 and in the said judgment, it has been clearly directed that notices must be given under Rule 3 to the Jamabandi raiyats of the village and since no such notice was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the learned Single Judge was justified in interfering with the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. It is contended that even otherwise, even in respect of non khas village, the Sub- Divisional Of