IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5033 of 2022 Md. Khalid, S/o Late Punjab Ali, R/o Vill- Barari, P.O.- Sukhari, Mehrma, P.S.- Meharma, Dist.- Godda, Jharkhand.

... Petitioner Versus

1. State of Jharkhand.

2. Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pragna Division, Dumka, P.O.+P.S+Dist.- Dumka.

3. Deputy Commissioner, Godda, P.O.+P.S+Dist.- Godda.

4. Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahagama, P.O. & P.S.- Meharma, Dist.- Godda.

5. Md. Aftab Alam, S/o Late Punjab Ali, R/o Barari, P.S.-

Mahram, P.O.- Sukhari, Dist.- Godda, Jharkhand.

… Respondents ----

PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Syed Nausad Ahmed, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, S.C.-I.

For the Resp. no. 5 : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Adv.

----

Dated : 16/02/2026

1. Heard Mr. Syed Naushad Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, learned S.C.-I and Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5.

2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“1. In this writ application the petitioner prays for order/ orders/ directions in the nature of Certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order dated 17/05/2022 of Divisional Commissioner, Santhan Pragna, Division at Dumka, (Respondent no 2) which was passed in R.M.A no 45/ 2020-21, in excess of jurisdiction and which is under challenge and whereby and where under the order of Deputy Commissioner, Godda (Respondent no 3) was set aside which was passed in R.M.A case no 32/2018-19 by reason of which the order dated 29.08.2018 of Sub- divisional officer. Mahagama (Respondent no 4) was set aside, and without deciding the matter on merit, the matter was remanded to Respondent no 4, to pass the order afresh for appointment of "Headman" as per the procedure of Santhan Pragna Tenancy Act.

AND For order/orders to the respondent-2 to exercise jurisdiction which is vested and to act within the four corner of statue and to pass the order in accordance with law and in view of the order 13/3/2021 passed by respondent no 4 in favor of petitioner for appointment as "Headman" before passing of impugned order which has not been challenged yet.

For order/ orders, writ or any direction in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as your lordship may deem fit and proper.”

3. The factual aspects of the case reveal that Punjab Ali had two wives; Zinat Khatoon and Nargish Khatoon. The petitioner is the elder son of Punjab Ali, born out of his marriage with Zeenat Khatoon, while the Respondent no. 5 is the step-brother of the petitioner, his mother being Nargis Khatoon. The father of the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 was the Pradhan of village- Barari, P.S.- Meharma, District- Godda and after his death, both the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 claimed themselves to be the Pradhan of the village by way of inheritance. The respondent no. 5 had filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer (respondent no. 4) in P.A. Case No. 21/2017-18 and an order was passed by the respondent no. 4 on 29-08-2018 appointing the respondent no. 5 as the Pradhan of the village concerned. The petitioner had challenged the said order before the Deputy Commissioner, Godda (respondent no. 3) by filing an appeal being R.M.A. No. 32/2018-19 and vide order dated 23-12-2020, the order of the respondent no. 4 dated 29-08-2018 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the respondent no. 4 for passing a fresh order in the light of the observations made in the appeal. Pursuant to the remand, the respondent no. 4, after taking into consideration the report of the Circle Officer, had passed an order on 13-03-2021 by reason of which, the claim of the petitioner for being appointed as a Pradhan was upheld and consequently, an order was passed on 04-06-2021 appointing the petitioner as Pradhan under the provisions of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act. The respondent no. 5 had, in the meantime, challenged the order of the respondent no. 3 dated 23-1