The appellate authority's decision must align with the subject matter of the appeal, and patta cannot be cancelled without non-payment of land revenue.

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. 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