This is a petition of revision filed under R. 35 of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Garo Hills District. The petitioner is one Channing Sangma and he moves this Court against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Garo Hills passed in Revenue Appeal No.7 of 1951-52, dated 29-3-52. (2) The case lor the petitioner is that he was illegally removed from the Nokmaship of Men-onggiri Akhing which was shared with his wife Ronggat who is now dead. The opposite party Singsan Sangma filed a petition before the Extra Assistant Commissioner at Tura on 31-8-50 that in view of the fact that Channing was not looking after his wife Ronggat who was ill, the petitioner and the Maharis or clansmen had released Channing from Akhym, (that' is the obligation to take a second wife to be pro­vided by the clansmen) and the Maharis did not want him to continue as Nokma. The case had a chequered career and I need not refer to the interim stages. Mt. Ronggat was in the meantime dead and Channing married another wife who he says was from the same clan as Ronggat. The case of the opposite-party was that Channing had already been released from, Akhym and he had no right to continue as a Nokma. The learned Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner passed an order on 7-11-1950 in favour of Singsan & his wife Simijing declaring them to be Nokmas. But that order was set aside in Revenue Appeal No. 13/1950-51 by the Deputy Commissioner as it was an 'ex parte' order and he remanded the case to the trial court. The learned Assistant to the De­puty Commissioner on remand referred the matter to a Panchayat as provided under Rule 31 of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Garo Hills District. After repeated extension of time for filing of the decision of the panchayat, • - on 8-5-51, three of the members constituting the pancha­yat submitted a report declaring Channing and his new wife Machani to be eligible to be Nokmas, and the fourth member filed a dissentient note and the umpire was absant. After repeated extension of time for filing of the decision of the panchayat, • - on 8-5-51, three of the members constituting the pancha­yat submitted a report declaring Channing and his new wife Machani to be eligible to be Nokmas, and the fourth member filed a dissentient note and the umpire was absant. On the receipt of the report from the arbi­trators the E. A. C. asked the, umpire to ap­pear before him and state what happened and the umpire on 29-5-51 stated that no final decision was arrived at in the meeting of the panchayat held in February, as alleged in the report filed by some of the members of the panchayat. The Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner again asked the, umpire to re-enquire into the matter by holding a fresh meeting of the pan­chayat and submit a report by 30-6-1951. On that date, the umpire submitted a report stating that the panchayat was held on 22-6-1951 as directed by the Court but all the members were not present and he wanted to resign from the office of the umpire and suggested that the matter should be heard in Court. The E. A. C. on that date accepted the previous report of the majority of mem­bers of the panchayat and passed a decree based thereon. Rule 31 of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Garo Hills District provides that when the case is decided by the panchayat, the umpire should appear with the parties before the Court which shall prccesd to record the deci­sion and enforce it as its own and from such decision there should be no appeal. But in this case, as a matter of fact, no competent report was made by the panchayat or by the umpire. On the other hand, the report of the umpire disclosed that there was no proper meeting of the panchayat at any stage nor did the members in a body come to any deci­sion which could be considered as final or con­clusive. (3) Mr. Lahiri appearing for the petitioner contends that under such circumstances, the •nly possible order is that there should have been another reference to the panchayat for a decision: in the case and the Deputy Commis­sioner had no jurisdiction to enter into the matter and record evidence and decide it on merits as he had done. (3) Mr. Lahiri appearing for the petitioner contends that under such circumstances, the •nly possible order is that there should have been another reference to the panchayat for a decision: in the case and the Deputy Commis­sioner had no jurisdiction to enter into the matter and record evidence and decide it on merits as he had done. (4) Rule 32 of the Garo Hills Administration Rules provides that an appeal would lie from the decision of the lasker or other duly re­cognised village authorities to the Deputy Commissioner or his Assistants duly authorised and if the appellate Court sees reasons to doubt the justice of the decision, it was com­petent to try the case 'de novo' or refer it to the panchayat as above. Rule 35 provides that an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner would lie against the decision of any of his Assistants provided that the appeal is filed within the period prescribed. The powers of the Court of appeal are nowhere specifically prescribed but the administration of civil justice in the Garo Hills is entrusted to the Deputy Commissioner and as such he has every right to pass any reasonable order which as an appellate Court he could do, keeping before him thei spirit of the Civil Procedure Code. Here the power that could be exercis­ed under R. 32 could undoubtedly be exercis­ed under R. 35 as well which speaks of the revisional power of the Deputy Commissioner as well his appellate jurisdiction. (5) Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the Deputy Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction or acted without jurisdiction in the matter of hearing the suit himself by re­cording evidence. I have perused the judgment of the learned Deputy Commissioner and Mr. Lahiri does not say that there is anything wrong with the findings except that he con­tends that the procedure has been illegal. Tak­ing the spirit of the Civil Rules applicable to the Garo Hills District, I do not think that there has been any illegality or want of juris­diction in the matter of the Deputy Commis­sioner hearing the matter 'de novo'. He has given cogent reasons for holding that the peti­tioner Channing Sangma has been legitimately released from the Akhym and he has lost the right to inherit his wife's (Ronggat's) Akhing in the matter of Nokmaship. He has given cogent reasons for holding that the peti­tioner Channing Sangma has been legitimately released from the Akhym and he has lost the right to inherit his wife's (Ronggat's) Akhing in the matter of Nokmaship. His present wife does not give him the status of the Nokrna as found by the learned Deputy Commissioner and I sG_e no reason to interfere with the find­ings arrived at by the learned Deputy Com­missioner. The petition is, therefore, rejected and the Rule is discharged. I, however, make no order as to costs. Rule discharged.