IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

L.P.A No.669 of 2022

Anand Hansda, aged about 61 years, S/o Late Arjun Hansda, R/o Village-

Phulbaria, P.O & P.S-Boarijore, District-Godda

……………..Petitioner/Appellant

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand,

2. The Commissioner, Santhal Paragana, Dumka, P.O. Dumka, P.S. Godda

Town, District Dumka;

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda, P.O. & P.S. Godda, District Godda. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda, P.O. & P.S. Godda, District Godda.

5. The Circle Officer, Boarijore, P.O. & P.S. Boarijore, District Godda.

6. Sanat Hansda, S/o Late Arjun Hansda, R/o Phulbaria, P.O. & P.S.

Boarijore, District Godda. …...... Respondents

-------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

-------

For the Appellant : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate

Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate

Ms. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Advocate

Md. Faiyaj Alam, Advocate

For the Resp.-State : Mr. Shubham Gautam, AC to AAG-V

For the Resp. No.6 : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate

Ms. Renuka Trivedy, Advocate

------

C.A.V on 25.11.2025 Pronounced on 17/12/2025

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 06.12.2022 passed in W.P(C) No.2513 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed by the

learned Single Judge.

Factual Matrix

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition needs to refer herein which reads as under:

(i) Writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner (appellant herein)

on the basis of the fact that the village Phulbaria within P.S- Boarijore, District-Godda is Pradhani Mouza and Late Arjun Hansda, the father of the appellant and the respondent no. 6 Sanat Hansda, was Pradhan of the village and after the death of Late Arjun Hansda, the post of Pradhan was vacant. The appellant is son of the first wife of Late Arjun Hansda and respondent no. 6 is son of the second wife of Late Arjun Hansda.

(ii) The seat of Pradhan was vacant on death of Late Arjun Hansda, then the appellant and the respondent no. 6 made application to the office of the respondent no. 4 mentioning therein the current situation of the village Phulbaria, Godda, is Pradhani village and the Pradhan of the village, namely, Late Arjun Hansda had died and the post of Pradhan may be filled on the basis of hereditary in terms of section 6 of Santhal Paragana Tenancy (Supplementary Provision) Act, 1949 (in short, the Act of 1949) and Schedule-V of the Santhal Paragana Tenancy (Supplementary) Rules, 1950 (in short, Rules, 1950). The matter was proceeded with and the case was registered as P.A. Case No.

47/2003-04.

(iii) Report from the respondent no. 5 was called for by the respondent no. 4 and vide order dated 26.10.2004, the order was passed wherein it was mentioned that on the basis of the report dated 21.06.2004 submitted by the respondent no.5, the respondent no. 6 is found to be the elder son of Late Arjun Hansda and he is fit to be appointed for the post of Pradhan. Further, it was found that 16 Anna Raiyats have submitted their application and on perusal of the application it is found that the 16 Anna Raiyats are in favour of making the appellant as Pradhan as the appellant is the competent person.

(iv) After submission of the report dated 21.06.2004 by the respondent no. 5 in the Court of respondent no. 4, again a report was called for from the respondent no. 5 vide order dated 01.07.2004 passed in P.A. Case No. 47/2003-04, but the same was never received and the matter proceeded on the basis of report dated 21.06.2004.

(v) The respondent no. 4 vide its order dated 26.10.2004 appointed the respondent no. 6 as Pradhan for the village Phulbaria, Godda under section 6 of the Santhal Paragana Tenancy (Supplementary Provision) Act, 1949 and Schedule V of the Santhal Paragana Tenancy (Supplementary) Rules, 1950 and directed the respondent no. 6 to deposit kabuliyat and security for one year in the treasury.

(vi) The appellant, thereafter, preferred an app