Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 17 (MEG)

Monjak Ali v. G. H. A. D. C.

2021-03-22

H.S.THANGKHIEW

body2021
JUDGMENT : H.S. Thangkhiew, J. 1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 14.02.2017 passed by the Chief Executive Member, G.H.A.D.C. (Respondent No. 3) in a Revision Petition setting aside order dated 18.01.2016 passed by the Executive Member In-charge Revenue and order dated 18.05.2015 passed by the Revenue Officer G.H.A.D.C. 2. The facts as put forth by the writ petitioner is that these proceedings were conducted as per the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886 which has been adopted by the G.H.A.D.C. and known as 'The Garo Hills Autonomous District (Land and Revenue) Regulation, 1954', wherein no appeal or revision lies before the Chief Executive Member against the order passed by the Executive Member In-charge Revenue, as the same should be filed before a duly constituted Board or Tribunal. As such, the prayer is to set aside the order dated 14.02.2017 as being illegal and without jurisdiction. 3. Heard Ms. B. Kharwanlang, learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that the respondent No. 7, who was the Gaonbura of Pathorkatta Village, on complaints being filed against him and on the directions of this Court to conduct a proper enquiry and on the allegations as made found to be correct, was dismissed from the post of Gaonbura of Pathorkatta, by order dated 18.05.2015 passed by the Revenue Officer. Further, learned counsel submits that on dismissal of the respondent No. 7, the petitioner replaced him as the Gaonbura. Thereafter, the learned counsel submits the respondent No. 7 preferred an appeal against the order dated 18.05.2015 passed by the Revenue Officer, before the respondent No. 4/Executive Member In-charge Revenue and the same was registered as G.H.A.D.C. Revenue Appeal No. 2 of 2015. The learned Executive Member In-charge Revenue, she submits, by order dated 18.01.2016 dismissed the said appeal and upheld the order dated 18.05.2015 passed by the Enquiry Officer and as such, the writ petitioner continued as the Gaonbura of the said village. 4. Learned counsel submits that thereafter against the order dated 18.01.2016, of the Executive Member In-charge Revenue, the respondent No. 7 filed a Revision Application which was registered as Revision Petition No. 2 of 2016, but was subsequently converted to a review application, when in fact, no power of revision or review lay with the Chief Executive Member, inasmuch as, the Regulation did not provide for the same. Learned counsel then submits that, the Chief Executive Member in a most arbitrary manner, in spite of not being vested with any appellate power and without any jurisdiction for taking up such matters, allowed the said Revision/Review and reinstated the respondent No. 7 to the post of Gaonbura of Pathorkatta Village. She submits that the entire order being illegal and the Chief Executive Member having acted without jurisdiction and in violation of the Regulation of 1954 as applied, the impugned order was bad in law and should be set aside and quashed. 5. Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel of the respondents No. 1-6 at the outset, has fairly submitted that as per the Regulation of 1954, whereby the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886 has been adopted. Section 3 (3) has provided for a District Revenue Tribunal be constituted under the orders of the Executive Committee for disposal of all appeal cases pertaining to land revenue matters. He submits that due to the non-constitution of such Board or Revenue tribunal, such appeal cases have been taken up by the Chief Executive Member. He then submits that apart from apprising this Court about the correct position of law, he has no other submissions to make on the factual aspects of the matter. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 7. By order of this Court dated 16.12.2020, it is noted that last chance was accorded to the respondent No. 7 to file an affidavit or objection as the case may be, failing which the matter would proceed ex-parte against him. Today also, none has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 7, as such, as per order dated 16.12.2020, the matter is being heard ex-parte against the respondent No. 7. 7. In the instant matter, it is noted that the only short point to be considered by this Court at this stage, is with regard to the competence of the appeal preferred by the respondent No. 7 before the Chief Executive Member (G.H.A.D.C) in a matter governed by the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 as adapted by the G.H.A.D.C. by The Garo Hills Autonomous District (Land and Revenue) Regulation, 1954. It would be expedient to quote Section 3 of the Regulation for the purposes of the instant case. "3. It would be expedient to quote Section 3 of the Regulation for the purposes of the instant case. "3. Adoption of Assam Land and Revenue Regulation 1886 and the rules made hereunder.- (1) The provisions in the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 and the Rules made hereunder as are relevant for the purposes of the administrating of land and assessment and collection of land revenue by the District Council and in consistency with the provisions in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India, shall mutatis mutandis be in force in the Autonomous District of Garo Hills. (2) All references to the State Government, Commissioner of Divisions and Director of Land Records or the Deputy Commissioner in the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation and Rules made hereunder, shall be construed as references to the "District Council" the Chief Executive Member" and "the Executive Member authorized by the District Council" respectively, and the various Revenue officers and their Subordinates under different designations appointed by the Executive Committee to discharge the functions of such offers. (3) Reference to the Tribunal in the said Chapters or Sections or in the said rules shall be construed as references to the District Revenue Tribunal to be constituted by, or under the orders of the Executive Committee for disposal of all appeal cases pertaining to land revenue matters." 8. As submitted by the learned counsel for the parties, a bare perusal of the provisions reflects that a District Revenue Tribunal is to be constituted by the Executive Committee of the G.H.A.D.C. for the disposal of all appeals pertaining to such matters. It is undisputed that the said Tribunal or Board is not in existence as on date and the matters which needs to be adjudicated have been entertained by the Chief Executive Member who by operation of the Regulation has no jurisdiction to try the same. 9. In consideration of the set position of law and the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 14.02.2017 passed in Revision/Review Petition No. 2 of 2016, being without jurisdiction is therefore set aside and quashed. 10. However, before parting with the records, this Court notes with concern that the provisions of the Regulation as enacted and to be applied have not been fully implemented by the respondents No. 1-6, which has led to such situations like the instant case. 10. However, before parting with the records, this Court notes with concern that the provisions of the Regulation as enacted and to be applied have not been fully implemented by the respondents No. 1-6, which has led to such situations like the instant case. It is therefore, directed for the ends of justice, that the Secretary to the Executive Committee/Administrator take up this matter for urgent consideration by the competent authority for the constitution of the District Revenue Tribunal at the earliest, so that all such matters which are pending, be taken up by the said Tribunal and the citizens be not deprived of recourse to justice as provided by the Regulation of 1954. 11. With the above noted directions, this writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above and is accordingly disposed of.