This revision has been preferred by plaintiff/petitioner against the judg­ment and order dated 11.9.89 passed by the Judge, Khasi Hills District Council Court, Shillong in Title Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1986, affirming the judgment and order of the Presiding Officer, Additional Subordinate District Council Court, Khyrim Syiemship in Title Suit No. 7 of 1981. 2. Revision petitioner as plaintiff filed the Title Suit No. 7 of 1981 for declaration of right, title and for permanent injunction in respect of a paddy field known as 'Sohlangdkhur' situated at Umtngam Village, Raid Tyrso Khyrim Syiemship, East Khasi Hills District and this land in dispute has been described in the schedule of the plaint. 3. Petitioner/plaintiff purchased aforesaid paddy field, by way of 'Siew Bai Nonglut Duh" (payment for expenses and developments) from the opposite party/defendant who executed a written deed of transfer in the presence of the village elders, and have been possessing the said land by making the field into an irrigated paddy field and making the water reservoirs and drains and cultivating paddy all along. After such possession for continuous eight years the petitioner applied for registration before the Syiem of Khyrim and Durbar, but on objection by the opposite party the matter was referred to the civil Court for decision. 4. Defendant/opposite party denied transfer of the paddy field, claimed uninterrupted possession by her and over all development over the suit land. 5. Finding of the trial Court was that: the averment made in the written statement were in complete contrary to her evidence on record. Further finding was that there was a transfer of the suit land made by the defendant and consequently the plaintiff possessed and improved the land by spending about ten thousand rupees (da ki phew hajar tyngka) but held that the transfer was not valid as the land being 'Raid land' in Umtngam Village cannot be sold, morgaged or transferred by payment of the expenses and improvements '-Siew Bai Nonglut" or leased permanently without the consent of the village elders. Coming to this decision the trial Court partially decreed the suit directing the opposite party/defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the expenditure made in the suit land by the petitioner/plaintiff and the plaintiff to return the land. On appeal the judg­ment of the trial Court had been upheld. 6. Coming to this decision the trial Court partially decreed the suit directing the opposite party/defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the expenditure made in the suit land by the petitioner/plaintiff and the plaintiff to return the land. On appeal the judg­ment of the trial Court had been upheld. 6. The grounds agitated before this Court were that, the Court below failed to appreciate the evidence on record, that in spite of evidence on record consent of the village elders was disbelieved and that possession for eight years over the suit land was not considered as the opposite party was estopped to claim possession after a long period and that the Court below failed to consider the rights to own and possess 'Raid land' according to long established customs. 7. Admittedly the suit land is 'Raid land' and concurrent findings of the Court below is that transfer of possession of the suit land was taken place between the parties and consideration was passed as the petitioner used the land by making development over the said suit land. The only ground for rejection of the petitioner's claim for interest over the land was that under the custom, in Village Umtngam, Raid Land cannot be sold, mortgaged or trans­ferred by payment of expenses without the consent of the village elders. The proposition is that if consent is given by the village elders Raid. Land can be transferred, and leased permanently under 'Siew Bar Nonglut' (payment for expenses and development). 8. Land tenure system in Meghalaya is based on customs. There is no codified customary law on land system and process has been underway to bring the customary law on land tenure. "The land tenure system in its indeterminate state as at present is the most vexed question amongst the Khasis affecting the life and death of the people, because of their historical attachment to the land. It should always be borne in mind that amongst the Khasis, from time immemorial, land has always belonged as is still held to belong to the people and not to the rulers nor the Government". (Report of the Land Reforms Commission for Khasi Hills). Persistent to this custom, there is no revenue system on land and landholders do not pay revenue for land, he occupied. 9. (Report of the Land Reforms Commission for Khasi Hills). Persistent to this custom, there is no revenue system on land and landholders do not pay revenue for land, he occupied. 9. Before proceeding to decide the case in hand it is necessary to be acquainted with the land system in the State of Meghalaya which is practiced under the customary law. 10. In the customary land tenure system there are two main classes of land-(l) Ri Raid land, and (2) Ri Kynti land. Under these two classes there are many sub classes known by same or different names in different Elakas (area) as said above, there is no system of land revenue according to custom and usages. Ri Kynti lands set apart known by different names in different Elakas set apart from the time to founding of the Elaka for certain class upon whom proprietary, heritable and transferrable over such land has been bestowed. The head of the families or clans came and occupied lands or obtained by them. The lands occupied and distributed as absolute possession became the Ri Kynti lands of those families. 11. In the case in hand the land involved in the dispute is Ri Raid land. The management and control of Ri Raid land belonging to the community under the jurisdiction of the community concerned. The community maybe (a) a village for a village Ri Raid land; (b) a group of villages constituting the Raid for Ri Raid land of the Raid, excluding Ri Raid land of the villages which is a constituent of that Raid; (c) the Elaka itself for the Ri Raid land of the Elaka, excluding the Ri Raid lands of village Re Raid land and Re Raid land of the Raid Ri Raid land being the land of the community people every member of the village, Raid or Elaka, as the case may be, has right of use and occupancy over the said lands respectively without payment of land revenue for the land itself. A member cannot claim more land than what he can actually occupy or actively make use of it. No person can claim possession over a vacant piece of land unless it is actually in his physical possession by doing cultivation. Physical possession by cultivation is the principal salient feature of the occupation over Ri Raid land. A member cannot claim more land than what he can actually occupy or actively make use of it. No person can claim possession over a vacant piece of land unless it is actually in his physical possession by doing cultivation. Physical possession by cultivation is the principal salient feature of the occupation over Ri Raid land. If a person vacates or does not make use of the land under his actual possession for three (3) consecutive years, the land reverts to the community village, Raid or Elaka - as the case may be. Another salient feature of the possession over Ri Raid land is that - there is no proprietary, heritable or transferrable right on the Ri Raid land - the occupation and use of which is of purely tempo­rary nature for seasonal cultivation. However, a man can acquire heritable and transferrable rights on Ri Raid land, if he has made permanent improve­ment by permanent construction of building or cultivation by permanent crops and plants like fruit trees, fisheries etc. But, if he discards even his permanent nature of possession consecutively for three (3) years, leaving such land uncared and unattended his right over such land shall automatically discon­tinue. In such cases, the Durbar of village, Raid of Elaka, as the case may be, is the competent authority to decide the period after which property may be reverted back to the village, Raid or Elaka, as the case may be. 12. Keeping in view the tenure system of Ri Raid land, distribution and occupation of which is governed by age old custom, the claim of the petitioner over the suit land has to be examined. Materials on record establi­shed that land in dispute is Ri Raid land in Village Umtngam, Raid Tyrsc-under Khyrim Syiemship. Land was allotted to the opposite party/defendant by the Village Durbar. Though the opposite party/defendant denied transfer of the land to the petitioner/plaintiff, the Courts below concurrently found that the land was transferred on payment to the petitioner and petitioner made permanent improvement by spending about Rs. 5.000/- - 10,000/-. It is also evidence on record that the petitioner possessed/occupied the land in question for about 8 years continuously and submitted application for registration of the land in his name as owner by continuous passession and for permanent improvement. 5.000/- - 10,000/-. It is also evidence on record that the petitioner possessed/occupied the land in question for about 8 years continuously and submitted application for registration of the land in his name as owner by continuous passession and for permanent improvement. Evidently, the original allottee, ie the opposite party was not in continuous possession for more than 3 years in the said land and transfer was made on payment of considerations. Attempt was made to establish that the transfer was only transfer by usufructuary mort­gage which is said to be prevalent in the area, ie Bhoir area. Evidence oh record (PW 1) shows under the customary law when a land is given by the headman (of the village Raid) it is entered in the Village Register and document is given in proof to the transferee, of such transfer. Conditions are imposed on such transfer, prohibiting absolute sale, or mortgage for long years. The village elder, according to the Courts below, is the competent person to give/transfer land. On the basis of this the Courts below held that as the land was not given or transferred by the village elder the transfer to the petitioner is itself invalid and against customary law. As discussed above allotment under the customary law the Raid land is not transferrable, by way of mortgage or sale, transfer of the land by usufructuary mortgage is not sustainable from the restriction put forth by the customary law over the occupation of the Ri Raid land. Petitioner's claim that he possessed the land after payment of compensation - Siew Bai Nonghut Duh - from defendant and in that case, permission from village elder is not necessary as by long possession on absolute payment of Siew Bai Nonghut Duh given him the right of absolute ownership in place of the defendant. Petitioner's claim of purchase by sale deed was rightly rejected by the Courts below as the purch­ase of Raid Land is prohibited under the customary law wherein temporary ownership by absolute physical possession is only recognised. Petitioner's claim of purchase by sale deed was rightly rejected by the Courts below as the purch­ase of Raid Land is prohibited under the customary law wherein temporary ownership by absolute physical possession is only recognised. The defendant relinquished her right and interest as the Ri Raid tenant over the disputed land on transfer of consideration and though the land was allotted to her by Village Durbar (as she stated in her written statement) or by issuing documents by the village elder, as stated by the PW 1, she discontinued her possession for more than three years and during this long period she did not claim the land and only objection was submitted after receipt of the notice from Village Durbar to decide the petitioner's application for registration of the land in his name. Allegation of the petitioner in the plaint of the suit was that, the opposite party/defendant objected only to gain the land which became a valuable. Most of land after the improvement and development by the petiti­oner was an aspect required consideration when the Courts below found discrepancy and inconsistencies in the written statement and the deposition of the opposite party/defendant in the suit. Other aspect of the issue is that both the petitioner and the opposite party are the persons of the community of the Village Umtang and entitled to allotment of the Ri Raid land meant for the village community, petitioner's possession of land through transfer from the opposite party is also a known fact to all the members of the community of the village and the admitted position is that the petitioner was in possession of the Raid land on Siew Bai Nonghut and improved and developed the land with­out any interruption form the opposite party since its transfer. Regarding the nature of allotment and possession of the Ri Raid land by any member of the community, the Report of Land Reform Commission for Khasi Hills stated that no person can claim any vacant land "within his occupation or has otherwise acquired it unless he has uocontrovertible evidence of his actual occupation or use of the land. A mere fencing of earth mound (suyrsija), or of bamboo or jungle wood, or a ditch surrounding the land, etc. A mere fencing of earth mound (suyrsija), or of bamboo or jungle wood, or a ditch surrounding the land, etc. without actual work within the fencing or demarcation, or a mere slip of paper from the headman or Syiem Raid or Sirdar Raid or even Chief of an Elaka, that the land had been settled with him for use or occupation without the holder of that paper actually occupying or making use of the land shall not entitle him to lay any claim on it, and thereby preclude one who really has need of it for cultivation, or homestead. If a person vacate or does not make use of the land under his actual occupation for the three consecutive years, the land reverse to the community ....." 13. As discussed above by continuous possession for long eight years after transfer by 'Siew Bai Nonghut' the petitioner got his interest over the Ri Raid land and the defendant/opposite party has relinquished such right for non continuation over the land for long eight years. The crux of the matter is that petitioner was not given any document by the Village Durbar pr by the village headman. Evidently petitioner's long possession over the land and improvement by spending a big amount is known to the village authority and the transaction was made in presence of village elders, in that view of the matter petitioner's possession be regularised under the provisions of customary law. 14. In the result the revision petition is allowed. No costs.