The main legal point established in the judgment is that disputes purely civil in nature, not connected with the office of the Nokma or related to any boundary dispute, cannot be adjudicated before the Revenue Member of the GHADC under the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (Social Customs and Usages) Validating Act, 1958.

ORDER :

H.S. Thangkhiew, J.

1. By means of the instant writ petition the petitioners have assailed the orders dated 20.12.2011 passed by the E.M In-charge Revenue, GHADC and order dated 16.04.2015 passed by the Chief Executive Member, GHADC on the ground that the orders so passed, were without jurisdiction and made in exercise of powers not vested upon them by law. This challenge is based on the premise that the Executive Members are only vested with powers to adjudicate on matters arising from, or relating to any Akhing dispute as per the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (Social Customs and Usages) Validating Act, 1958, and they do not exercise any other judicial functions pertaining to civil disputes.

2. Heard Ms. S.G. Momin, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent No. 1 to 3 and Mr. A.G. Momin, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent No. 4.

3. Ms. S.G. Momin, learned counsel submits that the point of issue in the writ petition is in the exercise of powers by the Executive Member In-charge Revenue of the GHADC in passing an order that amounts to a Money Decree, when no such power has been vested upon them to do so. Alluding to the facts, learned counsel submits that the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 4, are joint Nokmas of their Akhing which is known as Gandupara, wherein there is situated a Rubber Plantation which has been started since 1988-89, and the profits and proceeds arising therefrom used to be shared among the cultivators, who were the clan members themselves as per customary practice. She submits that one Shri. Tangan Sangma the predecessor of Respondent No. 4 sometime in 2007, had obtained an ex-parte order dated 14.06.2007 from the Executive Member In-charge Revenue with regard to rights over the said plantation apart from also restraining the petitioners from operating the same. Learned counsel submits that the said proceedings were conducted without issuance of notice to the petitioners, who then moved for vacation of the said order. However, she submits in the meantime, the petitioners' other clan members approached this Court by way of WP(C) No. 249(SH) of 2007 and this Court was pleased to stay the operation of the order dated 14.06.2007 passed by the Executive Member In-charge Revenue and by order dated 20.10.2010 the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the District Council to adjudicate the dispute as per law.

4. Learned counsel submits that thereafter while the petitioners were expecting that the matter would be adjudicated as per procedure established by law, were surprised when they came to learn about the order dated 20.12.2011, whereby the Executive Member In-charge Revenue had ordered that the Respondent No. 4 was entitled to 50% of the proceeds of the Rubber plantation which was assessed at Rs. 6 to 7 Lakhs per annum. Learned counsel submits that they came to learn about the existence of the order only on 24.04.2014, and after obtaining a certified copy on 07.05.2014, preferred an appeal before the Chief Executive Member GHADC, which was numbered as G.D.C. Revenue Appeal No. 38A/C of 2014. Learned counsel submits that amongst others, a ground had been taken that the dispute was a civil dispute between the members of the Garo Schedule Tribe and as such, should be adjudicated under the provisions of The Garo Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953. She submits that however, the Learned Chief Executive Member by order dated 16.04.2015, upheld the order of the Executive Member In-charge Revenue for which the petitioners are before this Court.

5. Learned counsel submits that the orders, both of which are impugned herein, are without any jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the dispute related to a monetary claim based on the principle of realization of damages by way of civil action, which is not maintainable under Section 8(1) of the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (Social Customs and Usage