Smti Mentilla B. Marak & Anr. vs . G.H.A.D.C. & Ors.
2022 Latest Caselaw 219 Meg

     Serial No. 16
     Regular List



                         HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                             AT SHILLONG

WP(C) No. 88 of 2018

                                                     Date of Decision: 17.05.2022
Smti Mentilla B. Marak & Anr.                  Vs.         G.H.A.D.C. & Ors.
Coram:
                 Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge

Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s)     :        Mr. A.S. Siddiqui, Sr. Adv with
                                             Ms. M.K. Sah, Adv.
For the Respondent(s)               :        Mr. S. Dey, SC, GHADC. for R 1-3.

Ms. Q.B. Lamare, Adv. for R 4 & 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. The events leading to the filing of this writ petition dates as far back

as 09.03.1987, when the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner Late Kejan

Sangma as Nokma of Bolwarigiri Akhing, made an application to the

respondent No. 3 claiming a portion of the Doldegiri Akhing stating that

the Agitok Mahari that is, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 4

and 5 had given a part of the land to the predecessor-in-interest of the

petitioner, but since there was no proper demarcation of the land, the entire

portion of the said land was allegedly wrongly recorded in the name of the

Agitok clan.

2. What follows is that, on receipt of the relevant application, the

Executive Member, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC)

had ordered that an enquiry be made by the Mauzadar who had in turn

submitted a report dated 11.05.1987 stating that the claim of Late Kejan

Sangma could not be supported by documents. On a further application

submitted before the Executive Member for referring the matter to the

Senior Assistant Settlement Officer, to conduct another enquiry which was

accordingly done, the report filed thereafter also confirms that Late Kejan

Sangma could not produce any documents to support his claim.

3. The Executive Member on receipt and perusal of the said report filed

by the Sr. Assistant Settlement Officer, had directed for a full and proper

enquiry, presumably under the provision of the Garo Hills Autonomous

Hills District (Social Customs and Usages) Validating Act, 1958, to be

made which was accordingly done so. After framing of issues and recording

of evidence of the witnesses and upon hearing the parties, the Executive

Member passed the order dated 21.12.1991 confirming that the

predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 4 & 5, Gonan Marak Nokma had

taken money from the Bolwari clan and has agreed to give part of the

Akhing land known as Doldegiri plot No. 2, now called Bolwarigiri Akhing

since the year 1920. It was also directed that demarcation of the boundaries

of the said Akhing be carried out.

4. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents No. 4 & 5 then

preferred an appeal before the Chief Executive Member, GHADC who

while disposing of the appeal vide Judgment and Order dated 02.09.1993,

had upheld the order of the Executive Member.

5. Again, being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the

Executive Member and the Chief Executive Member, the respondent's

predecessor-in-interest approached the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court by way

of writ petition being Civil Rule No. 950/94. Upon hearing the parties, the

Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 04.08.1995 had quashed the impugned

Judgment and Order dated 02.09.1993 of the Chief Executive Member and

had remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Chief Executive

Member.

6. During pendency of the matter before the Chief Executive Member,

the parties in dispute have filed a joint petition before the Executive

Member in-charge Revenue, with a prayer to prepare the map and

demarcate the disputed Akhing on the ground that the parties have settled

their differences amicably. The Executive Member acknowledging the

amicable settlement arrived at between the parties had vide order dated

19.05.2014 directed that the parties prepare separate maps of the respective

portion of the said Akhing land occupied by them according to the

boundaries and dhips (pillars) indicated in the records. Accordingly, the

map and the boundary demarcation was prepared by the Mauzadar.

7. The petitioners were however surprised to find out that the

respondents No. 4 & 5 herein have preferred an appeal before the Chief

Executive Member against the order dated 19.05.2014 passed by the

Executive Member and which appeal was finally disposed of vide order

dated 22.03.2018 by the Chief Executive Member, whereby it was directed

that, the Mauzadar to prepare separate Akhing map for both the clans

without any deviation from the boundary dhips as shown in the map

contained in the Mauzadar report dated 04.08.2016.

8. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 22.03.2018, the petitioners

have accordingly approached this Court by way of this instant writ petition.

9. At the hearing however, the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners

Mr. A.S. Siddiqui, as well as Mr. S. Dey, learned Standing Council,

GHADC, the respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 as well as Ms. Q.B. Lamare, learned

counsel appearing for respondents No. 4 & 5 have submitted at the bar that

this petition can be disposed of at this stage by setting aside the impugned

order dated 22.03.2018 and by remanding the same to the Executive

Member, in-charge Revenue, GHADC for fresh hearing.

10. It is also candidly admitted that the proceedings before the Executive

Member culminating in the order dated 19.05.2014 and the order impugned

herein dated 22.03.2018 passed by the Chief Executive Member, have been

conducted without following the due procedure as was held in the case of

Smti Dore Sangma & Ors. v. The Chief Executive Member, Garo Hills

District Council, Tura & Ors: (1988) 2 Gauhati Law Reports 120, wherein

at paragraph 20 of the same, the High Court has held that while deciding

the types of disputes over which the Revenue Member (implying the

Executive Member in-charge Revenue) has jurisdiction, the principles of

judicial procedure that is framing of issues and recording of evidence as

well as allowing the parties to be heard has to be followed which was not

done so in this case.

11. It is therefore prayed that this matter may be disposed of by the

impugned order being quashed as well as the said order dated 19.05.2014

and to direct that Executive Member to conduct fresh proceedings by

following due judicial procedure.

12. On consideration of the prayer made, this Court having perused the

relevant orders that is dated 19.05.2014 as well as the impugned order dated

22.03.2018 and noticing that the said orders have been passed without

following the judicial procedure as mentioned above, therefore in view of

the concession made before this Court, this instant petition is hereby

disposed of by the impugned order as well as the order dated 19.05.2014

being set aside and quashed.

13. It is further directed that the Executive Member in charge Revenue,

will hear the matter afresh by affording opportunity to the parties to present

their case by following due judicial procedure. The contesting parties shall

be present before the Executive Member in-charge Revenue on 20.06.2022.

14. Let copy of this order be issued upon the Executive Member, in-

charge Revenue for due compliance.

Judge

Meghalaya 17.05.2022 "N.Swer, Stenographer"