Shri. Etarson A. Sangma & Anr. vs . G.H.A.D.C & Ors.
2022 Latest Caselaw 204 Meg

Serial No. 35
Regular List
                             HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                                   AT SHILLONG

   WP(C) No. 457 of 2019                               Date of Order: 11.05.2022


   Shri. Etarson A. Sangma & Anr.           Vs.         G.H.A.D.C & Ors.

   Coram:
                          Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge


   Appearance:

   For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) :        Mr. P.T. Sangma, Adv.

   For the Respondent(s)             :      Mr. S. Dey, Adv. (For R 1-3)

Mr. P. Yobin, Adv. (For R 5).

i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc.:

   ii)        Whether approved for publication
              in press:                                        Yes/No


                         JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. Heard Mr. P.T. Sangma, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1-3, Mr. P. Yobin,

learned counsel for the respondent No. 5.

2. The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated

17.03.2017, passed by the Chief Executive Member, whereby an order

dated 23.08.2016 passed by the Executive Member I/C Land and

Revenue, G.H.A.D.C against Case No. Rev.7/A/C of 2015 has been

upheld.

3. Apart from the grievance of the petitioners and their claims to

be the daughter and son-in-law of the last recorded Nokma and as such

entitled to be notified as Nokma, what can be seen from the materials

before this Court is that, this instant matter was the subject of earlier writ

proceedings namely WP(C) No. 35 of 2014. This Court by order dated

09.02.2015, while disposing of the said writ petition at Paragraphs- 5 and

6, had directed as follows:

"5. On perusal of the proceeding of District GHADC-REV. No. 9 A.C. of 2013 before the Executive Member, I/C Land and Revenue, GHADC and also the proceeding of GDC-

REV/Appeal No. 33 A/C of 2013 before the Chief Executive Member, GHADC, Tura, it is clear that the parties had not had opportunity of proving their respective case by producing oral and documentary evidence. As stated above, the alleged Deed of Relinquishment dated 15.06.2010 is required to be proved by the respondents No. 4 & 5 in the manner prescribed by law in the appropriate forum; and on mere production of the alleged Deed of Relinquishment dated 15.06.2010 by the respondents No. 4 & 5, the authority cannot

rely on it unless and until it is proved in the manner prescribed by law.

6. In the above factual backdrop, 4 (four) important issues such as (i) whether the petitioner No. 2 is the substituted wife of the petitioner No. 1 offered by the Maharis or not? (ii) whether the petitioner No. 1 had left the house of the Nokma i.e. the house of late Bisan Ch. Marak or not? (iii) whether the petitioner No. 1 executed the alleged Deed of Relinquishment dated 15.06.2010 or not? and (iv) whether the Maharis of the concerned clan had appointed the respondents No. 4 & 5 as Nokma of Rangthangsora Akhing land or not? are required to be decided. As these issues were not decided by the Executive Member, I/C Land and Revenue, GHADC in District GHADC-REV. No. 9 A.C. of 2013 and also the Chief Executive Member, GHADC in GDC-REV/Appeal No. 33 A/C of 2013, the Executive Member, I/C Land and Revenue, GHADC is directed to decide the aforementioned issues after giving opportunity to the party to put up their case as well as allowing them to produce oral and documentary evidence to support their case. It is further made clear that the alleged Deed of Relinquishment dated 15.06.2010 is required to be proved in the manner provided by law keeping in view of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. So as to enable the Executive Member, IC Land and Revenue to decide the above issues, the impugned order dated 13.06.2013 passed in District GHADC-REV No. 9 A.C. of 2013 and order dated 16.01.2014 of Chief Executive Member, GHADC passed in GDC-REV/Appeal No. 33 A/C of 2013 are hereby set aside and quashed. Till the Executive Member, I/C Land and Revenue,

GHADC finally decided the above issues, the Secretary, Executive Committee, GHADC shall maintain and look after the Akhing land called Rangthangsora. The Executive Member, I/C Land and Revenue shall decide the case as expeditiously as possible not later than 6 (months) from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order."

4. A perusal of the directions as contained therein in the said 2

paragraphs indicated that the Executive Member, I/C was to examine the

matter on the issues as given in the said order. It appears that the Executive

Member, I/C on the remand of the matter took up the same and disposed

the case by order dated 23.08.2016, deciding the matter in favour of the

respondents. It is submitted by Mr. P.T. Sangma, learned counsel on behalf

of the petitioner that against the said order, an appeal was preferred before

the Chief Executive Member, but the same came to be dismissed as being

not maintainable as the appellants were not parties in the proceedings

before the Executive Member I/C Land and Revenue.

5. Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1-

3 submits that the order of the Chief Executive Member cannot be faulted,

in view of the fact that as recorded therein strangers to the matter were the

appellants. Mr. P. Yobin, learned counsel on behalf of the private

respondent No. 5 also corroborates the submissions by the learned counsel

for the respondent Nos. 1-3.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also examined

the impugned order, it is seen that the parties before the Executive Member

I/C were Shri. Dima A. Sangma and Smti. Thinda Ch. Marak (Respondents

herein) and the defendants/opposite parties is the writ petitioner and

another.

7. However, it is noted that in the appeal, so preferred against the

order, the appellants are one Shri. Karbing Ch. Marak and Shri. Libingson

Ch. Marak who were not parties before the lower forum.

8. In this view of the matter, there is no illegality with the appellate

order of the Chief Executive Member in dismissing the appeal and the

same deserves no interference.

9. However, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case,

it appears that the writ petitioners were as per the submissions of Mr. P. T.

Sangma, learned counsel for the petitioner on a wrong assumption that an

appeal would be maintainable even if it is was preferred by their clan

members. In this context, therefore taking a liberal view considering the

nature of the case and by application of the Principles of Justice and Equity,

coupled with the fact that the writ petitioners will be rendered remedy less,

liberty is given to the writ petitioner to prefer a fresh appeal against the

impugned order before the Chief Executive Member, who will decide the

same in accordance with law. Needless to add, the issue of delay and

explanation thereof shall also be considered by the Chief Executive

Member, taking into account the circumstances of the entire case.

10. Matter accordingly stands disposed of.

Judge

Meghalaya 11.05.2022 "D.Thabah-PS"