JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is presented against the Judgment and Order dated 30.05.2019, passed by the Chief Executive Member, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council in GHADC-REV. Appeal No. 13 A.C. of 2016, setting aside the order dated 28.10.2016, passed by the Executive Member i/c Land Revenue, GHADC, Tura which further directed, for registration of the respondent No. 4 and 5 as Nokmas, of Tochapara II-19 (16) A'khing, and also for correction of the Genealogical Table. 2. This issue as can be seen from the records involves the claim of Nokmaship of Tochapara A'khing, for which the petitioner is the current Nokma. As per the Genealogical chart annexed at Annexure- I, it is seen that Sangchi Sangma Machik and Jebin Marak were the last recorded Nokmas along with Ringgat Marak, who became who became the husband of Sangchi Sangma Machik after the death of Jebin Marak. Thereafter, it appears that the said Ringgat Marak entered into matrimony with one Adim Ch. Sangma, and thereafter with the petitioner i.e. Kinti Ch. Sangma. 3. The claim of the respondent No. 4, stands on the footing that she is the granddaughter of Sanchi Ch. Sangma and daughter of Adim Ch. Sangma, and as such by the bloodline is entitled to occupy the office of Nokma. It appears that this dispute came up before the Executive Member i/c Land Revenue GHADC, Tura as to this claim of Nokmaship. The learned Executive Member then vide order dated 28.10.2016 as recorded therein by consensus, directed as follows:- 'Late Ringat Marak, Nokma (Me asa) had three wives namely, 1. Late Sanchi Ch. Sangma, 2. Late Admin Ch. Sangma and 3. Smt. Kinti Ch. Sangma. Among these three wives only Smt. Kinti Ch. Sangma is legally married wife of Late Ringat Marak and they live together as husband and wife for longer than others. And that Smt. Kinti Ch. Sangma since legally married wife of Late Ringat Marak enjoys Nokmaship of the A.king which is governed by Garo Customary law and the practices prevailing among the Garo community since time immemorial and the social custom Garo are validated by an Act. For administration of the Thochapara II-19 (16) A.king status quo as on today shall be maintained and that Smti Kinti Ch. Sangma has to be continued the Nokmaship of the said A.king during her life time. And/or alternatively along with Smti Kinti Ch. Sangma, Smti Peje Ch. For administration of the Thochapara II-19 (16) A.king status quo as on today shall be maintained and that Smti Kinti Ch. Sangma has to be continued the Nokmaship of the said A.king during her life time. And/or alternatively along with Smti Kinti Ch. Sangma, Smti Peje Ch. Sangma and her husband Nengjing M. Marak, son-inlaw of Adim Ch. Sangma be allowed to enjoy Nokmaship be allowed to enjoy Nokmaship upon the due consideration of the clan people as proposed the chance has to given to Smt. Peje Ch. Sangma and to her husband Nengjing M. Maak to be acted as Nokma to the said A.king temporarily to assist her in case of emergency matter in A.king affairs due to old age of the present Nokma Me.chik of the A.king. Finally, I doth order that Smt. Kinit Ch. Sangma shall continue to be Nokma of Tochapara II-19 (16) till her death without interference from any cloner whatsoever, in the matter in the interest of the clan people of the said A.king in question.' 4. As it can be seen from the said order, the petitioner was allowed to continue as Nokma of Tochapara till her death. Against the said order dated 28.10.2016, an appeal was then preferred under Section 8 (2) of Garo Hills Autonomous District (Social Customs and Usages) Validating Act, 1958. The learned Chief Executive Member, GHADC, Tura, by the impugned order 30.05.2019, without going into the aspects as to whether the order under appeal was a consensus order, or examining the other facts that had been considered by the learned Executive Member, disposed of the appeal by holding that, it is only from the bloodline of the last registered Nokma, who should succeed to the office of Nokma, and as the appellant therein, i.e the respondent No. 4, belongs to the bloodline of the last recorded Nokma, the Nokmaship of Tochapara should vest with the respondent No. 4. 5. Mr. K. Paul, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. R. Kharmawlong, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that it is not disputed that the respondent No. 4 traces her bloodline to Sanchi Ch. Sangma but however, in view of the consensus order and the fact that the petitioner is presently occupying the office of Nokma, the respondent No. 4 is estopped from challenging the same. 6. Mr. Sangma but however, in view of the consensus order and the fact that the petitioner is presently occupying the office of Nokma, the respondent No. 4 is estopped from challenging the same. 6. Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 in his submissions, also acknowledges the fact that the second wife or third wife for that matter, who occupying the office of Nokma, shall possess life interest, as such he prays that appropriate orders be passed by this Court. 7. Mr. P.T. Sangma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, 5 and 6, has vehemently argued that the order of the Executive Member was not a consensus order, and as such the respondent No. 4 being aggrieved had preferred an appeal which was allowed. He further submits that by the operation of Garo Custom and Usages, the respondent No. 4, cannot be deprived of the office of Nokma of Tochapara A'khing. He however, could not show any material either in the appeal preferred before the Chief Executive Member, GHADC, Tura or in the affidavit filed before this Court, to buttress his submissions, that the order passed by the learned Executive Member, GHADC, Tura was not a consensus order. 8. In consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and the materials on record, this Court firstly, notes that the order passed by the learned Executive Member which is stated to be a consensus order has protected the rights of the petitioner for life, without touching upon the rights of the respondent No. 4, who shall occupy office thereafter. It is also noted the point that the order passed by the learned Executive Member was not by consensus, has not been assailed in any manner before the forum below in the appeal or in the affidavit filed before this Court. 9. In this view of the matter and without going into any other aspect, the impugned order dated 30.05.2019 is therefore set aside and the order dated 28.10.2016, passed by the Executive Member i/c Land Revenue GHADC, Tura is upheld. 10. Accordingly, in view of the above terms, this writ petition stands closed and is accordingly disposed of.