Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 122 (MEG)

Mentilla B. Marak v. G. H. A. D. C.

2022-05-17

W.DIENGDOH

body2022
JUDGMENT 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. 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. 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. 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.