Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 73 (MAN)

Ngulzathang Neihsial v. State of Manipur

2022-05-11

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. W.P.(C) No.260 of 2018 has been filed to quash the order dated 26.9.2017 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Tuibong, Churachandpur District. 2. W.P.(C) No.504 of 2018 has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 9.5.2018 issued by the Deputy Commissioner/District Programme Coordinator, DRDA, Churachandpur District. 3. Heard Mr. H. Kenajit, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. M. Rarry, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondents No. 1 to 3, and Mr. Serto T. Kom, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 4. The case of the petitioner is that he has purchased a piece of land measuring an extent of 15 hectares in Saikot on 12.7.2013 from the Chief of Saikot and developed his own village, namely, Nazareth. Though the village of the petitioner lies within the Saikot Village, the petitioner and the villagers entered their names for electoral roll in 58-Churachandpur and also to get the schemes of the Government, their names were entered under the Zenhang Village due to easy accessibility towards the Zenhang side as it was very difficult to reach the Saikot main land. However, the petitioner not seeing any future for its village under Zenhang, retracted back to its original jurisdiction i.e. under the Saikot village and the names of the petitioner and its villagers are now included in the electoral roll of 59-Saikot in the recent Manipur Assembly Election. The Government had also created new Sub Divisional Office and the petitioner's village comes under SDO, Saikot. 5. Further case of the petitioner is that he had been paying separate Hill House Tax as a Machet/Hamlet of Saikot village since 2014. As the tax has to be paid regularly, the petitioner again applied for paying Hill House Tax. However, to the utmost surprise of the petitioner, the Sub Divisional Officer, Tuibong vide impugned order dated 26.9.2017 cancelled the Machet order dated 22.5.2017 without giving any opportunity to the petitioner on the mere complaint of the fourth respondent Letkhochinthang Valte @ Letboi Valte. Challenging the impugned order dated 26.9.2017, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.260 of 2018. 6. The further case of the petitioner is that Nazareth village could not be developed as it should have been under the village authority of Zenhang Lamka and as such the petitioner approached for taking the benefits of the scheme of Government from its original administrative jurisdiction i.e. Saikot village authority. 6. The further case of the petitioner is that Nazareth village could not be developed as it should have been under the village authority of Zenhang Lamka and as such the petitioner approached for taking the benefits of the scheme of Government from its original administrative jurisdiction i.e. Saikot village authority. However, the fourth respondent is fighting tooth and nail so that the petitioner village is not reverted back to its original jurisdiction and the respondents 2 and 3 are also helping the fourth respondent by passing the impugned order dated 9.5.2018 arbitrarily without any material. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.504 of 2018. 7. In W.P.No.260 of 2018, the second respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that as per the records maintained by the second respondent, there is no order recognising the petitioner as Chief of a Village by the Government. The sale deed dated 12.7.2013 was executed between Kawlhminglien, Chief of Saikot as vendor and the petitioner as vendee for hill land measuring an area of 15 hectares. As per the observation made by the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur dated 12.9.2011, the jamabandi produced by the petitioner was based on a forged sale deed executed between Genlal and Ngulzathang and the said sale deed was in fact cancelled on 14.9.2011. It is stated that the payment of Hill House Tax since 2014 does not accord statutory recognition, especially when Nazareth was allowed as a Machet of Saikot village only on 22.5.2017. This order was again cancelled vide the impugned order dated 26.9.2017 due to suppression of material facts at the time of application. Further the matter regarding shifting of Assembly Constituency for a particular area may be affected as and when delimitation exercise conducted. Hence, second respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. In W.P.(C) No.504 of 2018 also the second respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that by passing the impugned order dated 9.5.2018, it has been ordered that the allocation of works under MGNREGS in respect of Nazareth shall be done through the village authority of Zenhang Lamka as Nazareth falls within the administrative jurisdiction of Zenhang Lamka village as per the verification report of BDO/Lamka TD Block and Nazareth is neither a Machet/Hamlet of Saikot village nor a recognised/census village authority in terms of Circular dated 7.1.2009 issued by the Commissioner (RD & PR), Government of Manipur. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. The fourth respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition in W.P.(C) No.260 of 2018 stating that by the order dated 12.9.2011, the Deputy Commissioner held that the jamabandi is a fake document and as such no process for recognition of the petitioner's village can be proceeded. It is stated that though the petitioner might have purchased a hill land from the Chief of Saikot village, yet it is admitted by the petitioner that he and the people who stays in the locality of Nazareth are under the village authority of Zenhang Lanka and as such any purchase of land from another village cannot by itself allow the bifurcating of an existing village and including the purchase land within the jurisdiction of the village authority of the village from where the land is said to be purchased. 10. The said hill land stated to be purchased in the year 2013, but the locality of Nazareth has been under the jurisdiction of Zenhang Lamka village authority since many years before 2013 and as such, the purchase of the hill land does not change the portion of the villagers, more so, when almost all the villagers are settled in their own respective private lands. The Meitei Christian Leikai objected the proposal for transfer of their job cards from Zenhang Lamka to Nazareth i.e. the locality of the petitioner. 11. It is stated that only the Hills Department, Government of Manipur, which can bifurcate the jurisdiction of Zenhang Lamka village authority by way of reducing the jurisdiction and also to increase the jurisdiction of Saikot village authority by way of increasing the jurisdiction. Hence, the SDO, Tuibuong, Churachandpur has no authority to issue the order dated 22.5.2017, thereby allowing Nazareth to be part of Saikot village authority. Therefore, the SDO, Tuibuong has rightly cancelled the order dated 22.5.2017 by issuing the impugned order dated 26.9.2017. 12. The fourth respondent field affidavit-in-opposition in W.P.(C) No.504 of 2018 stating that the issue of which village authority is to implement MGNREGS has already settled by this Court in an order dated 25.1.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No.721 of 2015 and the said decision has attained finality. This Court decided that the MGNREGS funds are to be routed through the village authority under which the Nazareth falls. This Court decided that the MGNREGS funds are to be routed through the village authority under which the Nazareth falls. It is stated that the determination of the jurisdiction of the village authorities of Saikot village and Zenhang Lamka village should be immediately preceding the date of order i.e. 25.1.2016, but not after. As such, the petitioner having admitted that the Nazareth localities have always been getting Government scheme including MGNREGS through Zenhang Lamka village (petitioner himself was Supervisor in implementing the said scheme under the Zenhang Lamka village) which means under the village authority of Zenhang Lamka village (village authority being the sole implementing agency), the impugned order dated 9.5.2018 was rightly issued and same does not deserves to be interfered. 13. Assailing the impugned order dated 26.9.2017, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the act of the third respondent in passing the impugned order is arbitrary and discriminatory and that no opportunity was given to the petitioner by the third respondent before coming to any conclusion. He would submit that the Government of Manipur had also recently developed some Sub Divisional Offices and Nazareth village being in the area of Saikot village, it now comes under the Saikot Sub Divisional Office which was previously under Tuibong Sub Divisional Office. Thus, presently the third respondent does not have any jurisdiction relating to any matters of Nazareth village. This clearly shows that Nazareth village is under the Saikot village. The learned counsel submits that the land wherein the petitioner is trying to development as a village is the land purchased from the Chief of Saikot. 14. Similarly, assailing the impugned order dated 9.5.2018, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that willingness or unwillingness of few individuals cannot determine the administrative jurisdiction of the place and that the area of Saikot is already determined by the Court way back in 1950 which is inclusive of Nazareth village and as determined by the State Government, its revenue jurisdiction is within Saikot and now their electoral roll has been changed from 58-Churachandpour to 59-Saikot. 15. 15. The learned counsel further submitted that in the impugned order dated 9.5.2018, the report of the BDO has been relied on wherein it has been stated that out of 61 job card holders 15 have migrated and one had expired and out of the remaining 45 job card holders, 29 job card holders are willing to be included under Nazareth and 16 job card holders are willing to be included under Zenhang Lamka. Even if the report of the BDO is taken into consideration, the second respondent could have never cancelled the Nazareth from the village authority of Saikot. 16. The learned counsel next submitted that while passing the impugned order dated 9.5.2018, the second respondent had mainly relied on the Machet cancellation order dated 26.9.2017 and it seems that the said order dated 26.9.2017 was passed just to support the impugned order. The fourth respondent does not have any definite area as Zenhang Lamka village and that the act of the second respondent in passing the impugned order is arbitrary and bias as discriminatory. 17. Supporting the impugned order dated 26.9.2017, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the order dated 22.5.2017 was obtained by showing a fake jamabandi and therefore, the third respondent has rightly cancelled the order dated 22.5.2017. He would submit that the payment of Hill House Tax is from 2014 only and therefore, the payment of Hill House Tax does not give statutory recognition, especially when Nazareth was allowed as a machete of Saikot village only on 22.5.2017. 18. Insofar the impugned order dated 9.5.2018 is concerned, it is the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. He would submit that while passing the impugned order, it has been ordered that the allocation of works under MGNREGS in respect of Nazareth shall be done through the village authority of Zenhang Lamka as Nazareth falls within the administrative jurisdiction of Zenhang Lamka village as per the verification report. 19. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that the Sub Divisional Officer, Tuibong has no authority to issue the order dated 22.5.2017 and therefore, it has been rightly cancelled by issuing the impugned order dated 26.9.2017. In fact, the SDO has no power to issue the order dated 22.5.2017. 19. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that the Sub Divisional Officer, Tuibong has no authority to issue the order dated 22.5.2017 and therefore, it has been rightly cancelled by issuing the impugned order dated 26.9.2017. In fact, the SDO has no power to issue the order dated 22.5.2017. He would submit that the order dated 22.5.2017 amounts to recognising Nazareth as a village under Saikot village when in fact the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur by an order dated 12.9.2011 has already passed an order rejecting the case of the petitioner for proceeding for recognition of his village i.e. Nazareth on some grounds, one of which is the sale deed produced by him obviously signed by the land owner Genlal and the jamabandi are fake. The petitioner should not be allowed to blow hot and cold on the issue of principles of nature justice. 20. As far as the impugned order dated 9.5.2018 is concerned, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that the inclusion of some surveyed land under village No.100-Saikot will have nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the village authority of Zenhang Lamka, inasmuch as the No.100-Saikot is created only for the convenience of record keeping. He would submit that as per law, the Hills Department, Government of Manipur is the sole authority who can allow a village to have a village authority under the relevant Act and Rules and as such reducing the jurisdiction or increasing the jurisdiction has to be allowed only by the Hills Department. In the case of Nazareth, the Hills Department has not till date allow the Nazareth to be within Saikot village by bifurcating from Zenhang Lamka village authority. 21. This Court considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 22. The present litigation is the third round of litigation. The first being W.P.(C) No.721 of 2015 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 25.1.2015 with a direction to the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner for allocation of works under the MGNREGS by ascertaining the village authority under whom the petitioner and his Nazareth villager falls. On 4.4.2016, the respondents declared that the allocation of work under MGNREGS in respect of Nazareth village to be routed through the village authority of Saikot village. On 4.4.2016, the respondents declared that the allocation of work under MGNREGS in respect of Nazareth village to be routed through the village authority of Saikot village. Aggrieved by the order dated 4.4.2016, the fourth respondent filed W.P.(C) No.401 of 2016 and the said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 21.10.2016 with an observation that if the fourth respondent is aggrieved by the order dated 4.4.2016, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Deputy Commissioner for review of the same for which the petitioner has to submit a representation to the Deputy Commissioner with necessary documents and will also be entitled to be heard. Till a decision is made, the order dated 4.4.2016 will continue to be in force. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2016, the fourth respondent filed W.A.No.84 of 2016 and a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said appeal on 17.5.2017 as withdrawn. 23. In W.P.(C) No.260 of 2018, a challenge is made to the impugned order dated 26.9.2017 cancelling the order dated 22.5.2017. According to the petitioner, before passing the impugned order dated 26.9.2017, the petitioner or the villagers have not been heard and therefore, the said order is in violation of principles of natural justice. In support, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India and others, (2007) 4 SCC 54 , wherein, in paragraphs 26 to 28, it has been held as follows: '26. This brings us to the question as to whether the principles of natural justice were required to be complied with. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the audi alteram partem is one of the basic pillars of natural justice which means no one should be condemned unheard. However, whenever possible the principle of natural justice should be followed. Ordinarily in a case of this nature the same should be complied with. Visitor may in a given situation issue notice to the employee who would be effected by the ultimate order that may be passed. He may not be given an oral hearing, but may be allowed to make a representation in writing. 27. It is also, however, well settled that it cannot pout any straitjacket formula. It may not be applied in a given case unless a prejudice is shown. He may not be given an oral hearing, but may be allowed to make a representation in writing. 27. It is also, however, well settled that it cannot pout any straitjacket formula. It may not be applied in a given case unless a prejudice is shown. It is not necessary where it would be a futile exercise. 28. A court of law does not insist on compliance with useless formality. It will not issue any such direction where the result would remain the same, in view of the fact situation prevailing or in terms of the legal consequences. Furthermore in this case, the selection of the appellant was illegal. He was not qualified on the cut-off date. Being ineligible to be considered for appointment, it would have been a futile exercise to give him an opportunity of being heards.' 24. On the other hand, it is the say of the Learned Additional Advocate General that there is no wrong in passing the impugned order dated 26.9.2017 as the documents produced by the petitioner at the time of passing the order dated 22.5.2017 are fake Finding that by producing a fake documents the petitioner has obtained the order dated 22.5.2017, the third respondent has rightly cancelled the said order vide impugned order dated 26.9.2017. In support, the learned Additional Advocate General placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hamza Haji v. State of Kerala and another, (2006) 7 SCC 416, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that a decision obtained by fraud on court and such decision is liable to be set aside. The basic principle is that party who secured a decision by fraud cannot be allowed to enjoy its fruits. 25. Admittedly, nothing has been produced by the respondent State to show that by playing and/or producing fake documents, the petitioner has obtained the order dated 22.5.2017, thereby Nazareth village was allowed as a Machet/Hamlet of Saiko village. In fact, it is seen from order dated 22.5.2017, before passing the said order, the Sub Divisional Officer, Tuibong has conducted enquiry and found the case to be genuine. For proper, appreciation, the order dated 22.5.2017 is extracted hereunder: 'No.21/14/2016/SDO-TBG/(Machet):/111 Shri Ngulzathang Neihsial S/o Shri Thianlam Neihsial, Chief of Nazareth Village, Tuibong Sub-Division has submitted an application to include 'NAZARETH VILLAGE' as a Machet of Saikot Village, Tuibong Sub-Division, Churachandpur District. 2. For proper, appreciation, the order dated 22.5.2017 is extracted hereunder: 'No.21/14/2016/SDO-TBG/(Machet):/111 Shri Ngulzathang Neihsial S/o Shri Thianlam Neihsial, Chief of Nazareth Village, Tuibong Sub-Division has submitted an application to include 'NAZARETH VILLAGE' as a Machet of Saikot Village, Tuibong Sub-Division, Churachandpur District. 2. On this regard, necessary enquiry has been conducted by this Office and found the case to be genuine. 3. No Objection Certification (NOC) has been issued by Shri Kawlhminglien, Chief of Saikot Village (Main Village). 4. Hence, Nazareth Village is hereby allowed as a Machet/Hamlet of Saikot Village. 5. Nazareth Village shall pay Hill House Tax through its main village.' 26. At this juncture, the learned Additional Advocate General argued that the SDO concerned is not the competent authority to pass such order allowing one village authority to be part of another recognized village/village authority and, therefore, the third respondent has rightly passed the impugned order dated 26.9.2017, cancelling the order dated 22.5.2017. The specific case of the respondents is that all matters relating to recognition of villages is under the purview of the Revenue Department, Government of Manipur and, therefore, the SDO has no authority. 27. As is seen from the records the Nazareth village consists of survey and unsurvey land (hill area). The survey area of Nazareth village is within the revenue jurisdiction of Saiko and presently under the new SDO, Saikot. The petitioner had purchased a piece of land of Nazareth village including the un-survey land measuring an area of 15 hectares, which is situated within the Saikot in Churachandpur District on 12.7.2013 by way of registered sale deed. According to the petitioner, the jurisdiction of Saikot village has already been settled by the judgment dated 5.1.1950 in Review Case No.461 of 1949-50 and he has also produced the copy folio and its translation. 28. The case of the petitioner is that even though Nazareth village was a part of Saikot, due to its geographical location, it was more convenient for the villagers of Nazareth to go to Zenhang than go to the main land area of Saikot. Therefore, all the villagers of the Nazareth village included their names for the purpose of election under 58-Churachandpur Assembly Constituency and not under 59-Saikot Assembly Constituency and as such the villagers of the Nazareth village had been getting benefits of the schemes, including MGNREGS of the Government through Zenhang village. Therefore, all the villagers of the Nazareth village included their names for the purpose of election under 58-Churachandpur Assembly Constituency and not under 59-Saikot Assembly Constituency and as such the villagers of the Nazareth village had been getting benefits of the schemes, including MGNREGS of the Government through Zenhang village. As the petitioner could not see any future for his village, if it remained attached to Zenhang village, the petitioner being Chief of Nazareth thinking about his village started to develop his village and separated from Zenhang village. Accordingly, he has submitted an application before the authority concerned and after finding merits in the application, the Sub Divisional Officer, Tuibong has rightly included the Nazareth village as a Machet Hamlet of Saikot village that too after conducting necessary enquiry. 29. This Court finds some force in the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Further, only after hearing and upon enquiry conducted and also after finding the case of the petitioner to be genuine, the Nazareth village has been allowed as a Machet/Hamlet of Saikot village and accordingly, Nazareth village was permitted to pay Hill House Tax through its main village. However, without any notice to the petitioner or the villagers of Nazareth, the same Sub Divisional Officer, who issued the order dated 22.5.2017, has passed the impugned order dated 26.9.2017 thereby cancelling his earlier order. The impugned order dated 26.9.2017 reads thus: 'No.2/14/2016/SDO-TBG/Rev(Machet)/207: An application dated 14.09.2017, requesting for cancellation of this office Machet Orders No.2/14/2016/SDO-TBG/(Machet)/111 dated 22.05.2017 has been received from Shri Letkhochinthang Valte. 2. The applicant has furnished relevant documents such as Electoral Roll, SDO/Churachandpur report dated 25.08.2015, DC/Churachandpur revocation Orders dated 25.08.2015, Advocate, High Court of Manipur letter dated 27.05.2016, SECC List-2011, Hill House Tax Copy, BDO Lamka appointment Orders dated 11.09.2008 etc. 3. This office has examined the said documents and is satisfied about the genuineness of the claims/report. 4. It has been found that the said Machet Orders was obtained by suppressing/hiding certain information/documents at the time of application. 5. Hence, the Machet Orders No.2/14/2016/SDOTBG/(Machet)/111 dated 22.05.2017 is hereby Cancelled.' 30. The impugned cancellation order dated 26.9.2017 has been passed mainly based on the application filed by the fourth respondent. On a reading of the impugned order, this Court finds that before cancelling the order dated 22.5.2017, the SDO has not conducted any enquiry. 5. Hence, the Machet Orders No.2/14/2016/SDOTBG/(Machet)/111 dated 22.05.2017 is hereby Cancelled.' 30. The impugned cancellation order dated 26.9.2017 has been passed mainly based on the application filed by the fourth respondent. On a reading of the impugned order, this Court finds that before cancelling the order dated 22.5.2017, the SDO has not conducted any enquiry. In fact, he has not heard the petitioner or the villagers of Nazareth. The SDO simply stated that the office has examined the documents produced by the fourth respondent and is satisfied about the genuineness of the claim/request. Satisfaction about the genuineness of the claim of a party is not a ground to cancel the previous order dated 22.5.2017 when public interest involved. There must be an enquiry to be conducted before passing such order. The aggrieved person or villagers are to be heard before passing such order and therefore, it prima facie proves that impugned order has been passed totally in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter needs to the remanded to the respondent authorities for fresh consideration. The fact situation obtained in this case requires the authority concerned who issued the impugned order must hear the parties before passing the order. 31. As stated supra, though the respondents contended that the SDO has no authority to pass an order allowing one village authority to be part of another village authority, nothing has been produced by them to establish their case. There is also merit in case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.260 of 2018 and, therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 26.9.2017 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Tuibong and remand the matter to the respondent authorities for fresh consideration in accordance with law and in the light of the earlier orders passed by this Court and also the proceedings of the respondent authorities. 32. Coming to the challenge made in W.P.(C) No.504 of 2018 is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the second respondent ought not to have passed the impugned order dated 9.5.2018 thereby ordering that the allocation of works under MGNREGS in respect of Nazareth shall be done through village authority of Zenhang Lamka as Nazareth falls within the administrative jurisdiction of Zenhang Lamka village. 33. 33. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the second respondent has rightly passed the order impugned dated 9.5.2018 that the works under MGNREGS in respect of Nazareth shall be done through the village authority of Zenhang Lamka as per the verification report of the BDO/Lamka TD Block and, therefore, no interference is warranted. 34. As held supra, the cancellation of the earlier order dated 22.5.2017 that the Nazareth is Mache/Hamlet of Saikot vide impugned order dated 26.9.2017 is in violation of principles of natural justice. Further, setting aside the order dated 26.9.2017 on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice will not to test the merits of the claim made by the parties in W.P.(C) No.540 of 2018. 35. The operative portion of the impugned order in W.P.(C) No.540 of 2018 reads thus: 'Now, therefore, on perusal of the spot verification reports submitted by the BDO, Lamka TD Block and BDO Saikot TD Block and the document available with the office of District Programme Coordinator, MGNREGS, Churachandpur, it will be proper and justified by passing an order for review of the earlier order dated 04.04.2016 by DC, Churachandpur for transfer of al Job Car holders of Nazareth from Zenhang Lamka under Lamka TD Block to Saikot TD Block, as such, it is ordered that the allocation of works under MGNREGS in respect of Nazareth shal be done through Village Authority of Zenhang Lamka as Nazareth falls within the administrative jurisdiction of Zenhang Lamka Village as per the verification report of BDO/Lamka TD Block and the Nazareth is neither a Machet/Hamlet of Saikot Village nor a recognized/census village authority in terms of the Circular No.15/1/2005- RD(MC) dated 07.01.2008 issued by the Commissioner (RD&PR) Government of Manipur and Para 2.1 MGNREGS Operational Guideline 2013 (4th edition) which provides that Panchayati Raj Institute/Village Authority will be the sold agency for the implementation of MGNREGS/MGNREGA.' 36. On a perusal of the impugned order dated 9.5.2018, this Court finds that before passing the same, the Deputy Commissioner has verified the reports of the BDO, Lamka TD Block and BDO, Saikot TD Block and other related documents and has reviewed the order dated 4.4.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur for transfer of all job card holders of Nazareth from Zenhang Lamka under the Lamka TD Block to Saikot TD Block. As such, the Deputy Commissioner/District Programme Co-ordinator (MGNREGS), DRDA, Churachandpur has ordered that the allocation of works under the MGNREGS in respect of Nazareth shall be done through the village authority of Zenhang Lamka as Nazareth falls within the administrative jurisdiction of Zenhang Lamka village as per the verification report of BDO, Lamka TD Block. Nothing has been produced by the petitioner to show that the said order is wrong. 37. It appears that till date the Nazareth village had been getting benefits of the schemes, including MGNREGS of the Government through the Zenhang village. Therefore, it would be appropriate to continue the same for the welfare of the villagers of Nazareth and also in the interest of justice. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted insofar as the impugned order dated 9.5.2018 is concerned. 38. In the result, (i) W.P.(C) No.260 of 2018 is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.9.2017 is set aside. (ii) The matter is remanded to the respondent authorities for fresh consideration and the authority concerned is directed to consider the matter in accordance with law and in the light of the earlier orders passed by this Court and also the proceedings of the respondent authorities, after hearing all concerned. (iii) While considering the matter, the authority concerned is directed to invite suggestions of the petitioner as well as the villagers Nazareth village. (iv) The petitioner and the villagers of Nazareth are given liberty to produce relevant documents before the authority concerned at the time of consideration of the matter/hearing and thereafter, only the authority concerned to take a decision in this matter, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (v) W.P.(C) No.504 of 2018 is dismissed. (vi) No costs.