This appeal has been filed by the appellant Miru Tudu, husband-Late Munshi Maradi, resident of Ghagharjani, Police Station-Hiranupur, District-Pakur against the order passed in the court of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur in P.A. Case No.-16/2014-15 dated 29.01.2024. The matter in brief is that in the light of the direction contained in the order passed on 05.11.2022 in the PA Appeal Case No.-01/21-22 dated 05.11.2022 of the court of the undersigned, the Sub-Divisional Officer Pakur passed an order dated 29.01.2024 in his court's PA Case No.-16/2014-15 for the post of Gram Pradhan of Mauja-Ghagharjani under Hiranpur Zone and appointed respondent No.-01 Pradhan Murmu, father-Late Jyotin Murmu, resident of Ghagharjani, to the post of Gram Pradhan of Mauja-Ghagharjani. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, terming the said appointment made by the lower court as wrong. The described case was accepted for hearing. The original record was demanded from the lower court. Also, notice was issued to the respondents to appear in the court and present their side. The respondents appeared in the court through their respective nominated advocates and presented their side in the court. Thereafter, on the last scheduled date of hearing the case on 21.03.2025, the record was fixed for order after hearing the final arguments presented by the nominated advocates of the parties. Heard the nominated advocate of the appellant and perused the appeal application filed by him. He says that in the appointment made by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur to the post of Gram Pradhan of Mauja-Ghagharjani under Anchal Hiranpur, in P.A. Case No.-01/2021-22 dated in the court of Deputy Commissioner, Pakur The appointment to the post of Gram Pradhan of Mauja Ghagharjani has been made by the lower court without complying with the order passed on 05.11.2022. They say that in the order passed by the court of Deputy Commissioner, Pakur for appointment to the post of Gram Pradhan of Mauja-Ghagharjani, it has been clarified that the appointment to the post of Gram Pradhan of Mauja Ghagharjani should be done in the light of the provisions mentioned in the judgment passed in Thakur Hembrom Vs State of Bihar, 1980 BLUR 448, 1980 BLU 212 (DB) SPT Act 1949 and SPT Rule 1950, but the appointment to the post of Gram Pradhan in the Mauja has been made without following the judgment passed by the lower court in Thakur Hembrom Vs State of Bihar and without obtaining consent from 16/- Ana Raiyats of the Mauja. It has been said by them that there is a provision in the appointment of Gram Pradhan that the appointed Gram Pradhan should be generally accepted by the 16/- ana raiyats of the Mauza, but the appointed Gram Pradhan belongs to the Christian community in the Santhal caste dominated area, due to which religious functions related to the Santhal caste such as worship in Majhi Than, Jaherthan cannot be performed. Also, they cannot participate in marriages conducted according to Santhal customs. It has been said by them that the appointed Gram Pradhan of the Mauza does not have the support of the 16/- ana raiyats of Mauza-Ghagharjani. For this, they have requested to cancel the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur, calling it against the rules.   Heard the learned counsel for the respondent. He said that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur, in strict compliance of the order passed by the court of Deputy Commissioner, Pakur in P.A. Appeal Case No. 01/21-22 dated 05.11.2022, has made the appointment to the post of Gram Pradhan of Mauja-Ghagharjani. He said that in the order passed in Thakur Hembrom Vs State of Bihar, it has been clarified that the process of appointment has to be completed by the Sub-Divisional Officer / Deputy Commissioner in accordance with the claim made on the post of Gram Pradhan on hereditary basis and after the cancellation of the claim being made on hereditary basis, the process of appointment to the post of Gram Pradhan in Mauja has to be adopted in compliance with Section-5 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act-1949. He also said that the father of the present Gram Pradhan Pradhan Murmu-Jyotin Murmu was the last appointed lease holder Gram Pradhan of Mauja-Ghagharjani and after his death Pradhan Murmu submitted the application for appointment to the post of Gram Pradhan and in compliance with the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur in Thakur Hembrom Vs State of Bihar, Pradhan Murmu was appointed to the post of Gram Pradhan of Mauja-Ghagharjani. He has requested to dismiss the appeal application of the appellant by terming the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur as legal. Heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the entire record and the order passed by the lower court on 29.01.2024. In compliance with the order passed by the court of the undersigned on 05.11.2022 in P.A. Appeal Case No. 01/21-22, the following court has appointed Pradhan Murmu to the post of Gram Pradhan of Mauja-Ghagharjani. During the hearing of the case, the appellant presented the argument before the court that although Pradhan Murmu's father was the Gram Pradhan of Mauja-Ghagharjani, he never discharged the responsibilities related to the Gram Pradhan in the Mauja. Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act-1949 has provision for removal of Pradhan from his post and a copy of the order dated 24.09.2010 passed in PD case no. 03/01-02 (16/-Ana Raiyat, Mauja Ghagharjani-vs-Jyotin Murmu) of the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur is attached in the record, on perusal of which it appears that in the light of the allegation levelled against Jyotin Murmu, the Gram Pradhan of Mauja-Ghagharjani, who was the father of Pradhan Murmu, for removal from the post of Gram Pradhan, a PD case was filed in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur, in which the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur, finding the allegation levelled against Jyotin Murmu not correct, has dismissed the Pradhan Uchdedi case filed by the raiyats. Thus, the appellant's statement that though Jyotin Murmu was the village head, he did not discharge the responsibilities of the village head in the Mauja appears to be baseless. There is only one point of consideration in this case that since the current village head belongs to the Christian community, he cannot perform religious functions related to the Santhal caste such as Manjhi Than, Jaherthan in the Santhal caste dominated area Mauja-Ghagharjani. Also, the religious functions performed as per Santhal customs and rituals should not be performed Cannot even participate in marriages. The current Gram Pradhan is appointed to perform the revenue related works of the Raiyat of the Mauja as well as to perform other social works. In such a situation, it is necessary that the current Gram Pradhan not only performs the revenue related work of the Raiyats but also participates in their religious programs and performs his duty. Therefore, the responsible Gram Pradhan, Pradhan Murmu is ordered to complete the revenue related work of the Mauj raiyats on time. Along with this, he will also take interest in their religious programs and perform the work. Therefore, after the above facts and investigation, I find that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur, in strict compliance of the order passed by the court of the undersigned in P.A. Appeal Case No.-01/21-22 dated 05.11.2022, has appointed Pradhan Murmu to the post of Gram Pradhan of Mauja Ghagharjani and there appears to be no justification for cancelling the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur. In the above context, the appeal application of the appellant is rejected and the case proceedings are terminated. The order should be read by the learned advocate of both the parties