ORDER U.B. Saha, J. 1. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner Sri Jenar Marak, challenging the order dated 9-7-2004 passed by the Ld. Chief Executive Member, Garo Hills District Council, Tura in G.D.C. - Rev. (Misc.) Appeal No. 2 of 1999 whereby and where-under the Ld. Chief Executive Member, Garo Hills District Council, Tura while disposing the aforesaid appeal of the petitioner filed against the order dated 21-12-1998 in case No. GDC-Rev/56 of 1998-99 wherein the Executive Member, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, awarded adjournment cost of Rs. 200/- (Rupees Two Hundred only), cancelled the periodic patta No. 2043 of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mrs. S. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. S. Dey, learned Standing Counsel for GHADC, respondent Nos. 1 &2. 3. On perusal of the records available before this Court, it appears that in some of the documents it is written as Garo Hills Autonomous District Council and somewhere as Garo Hills District Council. On clarification, learned Counsel of both sides submit that Garo Hills Autonomous District Council and Garo Hills District Council are one and same and as such it is mentioned as 'District Council' in the following judgment. 4. Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition in hand are as follows: The respondent No. 3 filed an application before the Court of Ld. Executive Member, In-charge of Land and Revenue, District Council, Tura for cancelling the periodic patta No. 2049 illegally obtained by Sri Jenar Marak, petitioner herein. On receipt of notice from the Court of the Ld. Executive Member, the petitioner herein appeared before it. While the proceeding was pending before the Court of the Ld. Executive Member, the present petitioner on 21-12-1998 prayed for adjournment of the matter for taking necessary steps. While allowing the prayer for adjournment the Ld. Executive Member awarded a cost of Rs. 200/- (Rupees Two Hundred only) and re-fixed the case on 22nd January, 1999 for hearing. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order of awarding cost, the present petitioner filed an appeal before the Ld. Chief Executive Member, District Council and the said appeal was registered as G.D.C. - Rev (Misc.) Appeal No. 2 of 1999. After the admission of the appeal the respondent No. 3 appeared and contested the appeal. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order of awarding cost, the present petitioner filed an appeal before the Ld. Chief Executive Member, District Council and the said appeal was registered as G.D.C. - Rev (Misc.) Appeal No. 2 of 1999. After the admission of the appeal the respondent No. 3 appeared and contested the appeal. On 9-7-2004, the present writ petitioner who was appellant therein, failed to appear. As the Chief Executive Member admitted the appeal and stayed the order of the Executive Member, In-Charge revenue GDC, Tura on 21-1-1999, which was succeeded by one Sri W. Sangma who never proceeded with the case and thereafter said Sri W. Sangma was succeeded by another Sri EA Sangma, who also never issued any notice of hearing of the appeal, although the writ petitioner was anxiously waiting for a notice of hearing. During the pendency of the appeal before the Chief Executive Member, District Council, the petitioner by mortgaging his patta and on the basis of "No Objection Certificate" issued by the respondent No. 1, District Council, obtained a loan from the Meghalaya Co-operative Apex Bank, Tura and constructed the shop rooms on his land and settled to the tenants who are in occupation of the same. While the petitioner was waiting for notice of hearing from the respondent No. 2, he was shocked and surprised when the respondent No. 3 approached the petitioner for vacating the land in question on the ground that his patta was cancelled by the Chief Executive member, Appellate Authority vide order dated 9-7-2004. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. 6. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 decided not to respond by filing counter. However, respondent No. 3 filed its affidavit-in-opposition supporting the impugned order passed by the appellate authority, Chief Executive Member, District Council exercising its statutory powers and denied the allegation made by the petitioner in the writ petition. 7. Mrs. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner while supporting the contention made in the writ petition contends that the impugned order is an order without jurisdiction as the appeal was preferred by the petitioner challenging the order of adjournment cost, but not against any final order in the proceeding pending before the Court of Executive Member. 7. Mrs. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner while supporting the contention made in the writ petition contends that the impugned order is an order without jurisdiction as the appeal was preferred by the petitioner challenging the order of adjournment cost, but not against any final order in the proceeding pending before the Court of Executive Member. The appellate authority while deciding the appeal almost decided the entire dispute pending before the learned subordinate Court, i.e. in the Court of Executive Member, In-Charge of Land and Revenue, District Council. She also contended that though the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable in a proceeding pending before the land revenue Court or land tribunal but obviously the principle is applicable. Hence the dismissal of appeal on merit in absence of the appellant by the appellate authority i.e. Chief Executive Member, District Council vide its order dated 9-7-2004 as impugned, is without jurisdiction as an appeal can only be dismissed in default for absence of lawyer, but not on merit. She finally contended that it is the settled position of law, that once a patta is issued in favour of any person by the appropriate authority then the same cannot be cancelled as there is no provision for cancellation of such patta. Patta can only be annulled for non-payment of the revenue. In the instant case, the appellate authority in its impugned order did not even make any statement regarding the non-payment of revenue by the petitioner for the land for which he obtained patta from the appropriate authority. In support of her aforesaid contention she relied on a decision in the case of Saona Mura v. Charthey Teron reported in AIR 1951 Gau 41 (C.N. 18) wherein the Hon'ble Chief Justice Thadani, while accepting the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent of that case stated thus- Mr. P.K. Lahiri has frankly stated that there is no section in the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation which empowers a Deputy Commissioner to cancel periodic patta once granted to a person; there is only provision for the annulment of a periodic patta which takes place upon non-payment of land revenue; if there is no default in the payment of land revenue, the patta cannot be cancelled. 8. Mr. Dey, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 8. Mr. Dey, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that as he has been recently engaged in the case and there is no counter available in the record on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, he asked the respondent authorities for furnishing necessary instructions which is also not received by him by this time and in such a situation he is unable to make any submission so far the factual aspect is concerned. But according to him, the appellate authority's order is beyond the subject matter of the appeal before him; particularly the appeal is preferred for cancelling the order of adjournment cost but the appellate Court decided the revenue proceeding as a whole by cancelling the patta of the petitioner which was pending before the Court of Executive Member. 9. Mr. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, while responding to the submission of Mrs. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner, supported the order of the appellate authority. Chief Executive Member, District Council on the ground that there was no other option before the appellate authority except to pass the impugned order when the petitioner absented himself from the proceedings time and again and also the patta was obtained by him by way of fraud as the land belonged to the Tura Municipal Board and Municipal Board also authorized the respondent No. 3 herein, who is still in possession of the land in question. He again contended that the impugned order passed by the appellate authority is within his power as the patta of the petitioner is issued by the District Council illegally, more so, Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (Land and Revenue) Regulation, 1954 empowers him to dispose the appeal. 10. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the relevant records available before this Court, it appears that this Court while issuing notice also passed an interim order directing the parties to maintain status-quo with regard to the land in question, and thereafter, on 9-3-2006 issued rule. On scrutiny of the records of the Courts below, it appears that the learned Court of Executive Member, in charge of Land and Revenue, District Council passed an order, inter alia, on 20-12-1998 in case No. GDC-REV/56 of 1998-99. On scrutiny of the records of the Courts below, it appears that the learned Court of Executive Member, in charge of Land and Revenue, District Council passed an order, inter alia, on 20-12-1998 in case No. GDC-REV/56 of 1998-99. "However, in the interest of justice the submission of the O.P. for adjournment for taking necessary steps which is considered on payment of Rs. 200/- (Rupees Two Hundred only) re-fixed the matter on 22nd January, 1999 for hearing". The present petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of 20-12-1998, which was admitted by the Appellate Authority and also stayed the order of the learned Executive Member, and thereafter passed the impugned order cancelling the Patta No. 2043 when the proceeding relating to cancellation of patta of the petitioner being Patta No. 2049 was pending before the Court below. This Court has also gone through the provisions of Regulation, 1886 as well as the decision in the case of Saona Mura v. Charthey Teron (supra) as referred to by Mrs. Bhattacharjee. 11. According to this Court, the appellate Court is authorized to decide the appeal for which the appeal is preferred and beyond the same if anything is done that has to be treated without jurisdiction. It is admitted position that the appellate authority, the Chief Executive Member while deciding the appeal against the order dated 21-12-1998 of the Court of Executive Member decided the whole proceeding pending before him. In the instant case, this Court is of the view that the appellate authority cancelling the order of patta of the petitioner, which was the subject-matter before the Ld. Executive Member, committed an error and not only that, such cancellation of patta is also without jurisdiction. This Court is in full agreement with the views expressed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the then Assam High Court that patta cannot be cancelled as there is no provision for cancellation of patta in the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (for short, 'Regulation, 1886') which is applicable within the State of Meghalaya including GHADC. However, a patta can be annulled subject to non-payment of land revenue. Periodic patta means-patta for a particular period and if the patta holder paid the revenue, then he is entitled to get the title over the land mentioned in the patta as per law. However, a patta can be annulled subject to non-payment of land revenue. Periodic patta means-patta for a particular period and if the patta holder paid the revenue, then he is entitled to get the title over the land mentioned in the patta as per law. But in the instant case, in the impugned order, there is nothing mentioned by the appellate authority that the present petitioner was a defaulter regarding payment of land revenue. Therefore, on that ground also the order of the appellate authority cannot be sustained. As it appears from the record that the respondent No. 3 made an allegation to the Court below, inter alia, that the patta was obtained by the present petitioner secretly and in most illegal manner from the District Council, the best course for the Court below was to refer the matter to the Civil Court as the revenue authorities has no power for such cancellation of patta under the Regulation. More so, after perusal of the order impugned, this Court has no other option except to hold that the appellate authority, passed the impugned order mechanically without applying his mind as he cancelled the Patta No. 2043 instead of Patta No. 2049 which was not even the subject-matter before the revenue Court on that ground also the impugned order needs to be quashed. 11A. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 9-7-2004 passed by the appellate authority, i.e. learned Chief Executive Member, District Council is hereby quashed. 12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remitted to the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh only on the issue involved in the appeal preferred by the petitioner after providing opportunities to the parties in the appeal. No order as to costs. Send down the LC records forthwith.