SHEAPUJAN BHAGAT versus THAKUR HEMBROM AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 606 · Decided: 07-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHEAPUJAN BHAGAT 
v. 
THAKUR HEMBROM AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 7, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Santai Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions), Act, 1949: 
Ss.4(ix) and 5- 'Khas Village '-Village headman-Appointment of-
C Village headman having resigned, the village became a 'Khas village' i.e. 
a village in which there is no headman-On the directions of Assistant 
Commissioner eleption was conducted and appellant was declared elected-
The election was challenged and ultimately the High Court held that the 
appointment should be made as far as possible under the hereditary principle 
and in case the candidate in the line of succession is unavailable, then the 
D election should be conducted-Held, in this case the question of hereditary 
succession does not arise since the previous incumbent had voluntarily 
resigned-It would arise only when the incumbent 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-Appellant not being from the same 
village, cannot claim the right of appointment-Commissioner to hold a 
E regular election according to law. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1085 of 
!980. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.79 of the Patna High 
Court in C. W.J.C. No. 4949 of I 978. 
A.K. Pandey for R.P. Singh for the Appellants. 
G 
D.N. Goburdhan for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Though notice was sent to the legal representatives of the contesting 
respondents, the acknowledgment has not been received. Therefore, it 
H must be deemed to have been served. 
606 
SHEAPUJAN BHAGATv. THAKURHEMBROM 
607 
The only question for consideration is: whether the respondent shou:d A 
be appointed as a headman under Section 5 of the Santai 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 B 
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 C 
set aside the order of appointment. When Writ petition was filed against 
that order, the High Court 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, 
then 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 D 
"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 E 
raiyats of the village ascertained in the manner prescribed, the 
Deputy Commissioner may declare that a headman shall be appointed for 
the village and shall then proceed to make the appointment in the prescribed 
1nanner. 
The question then is : whether a person from different village can F 
contest the election for headman? It is seen 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 since the previous incumbent, Hari Hembrom 
had voluntarily resigned and, therefore, the question ofhereditary succession G 
does not arise. It would arise only when the incumbent 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 vo:untarily, the question of hereditary succession does 
not arise. Admittedly, the app

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.