IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for adherence to fundamental principles of judicial procedure, including framing of issues, recording of evidence, and hearing of parties, as mandated by the relevant legal provisions and judicial pronouncements.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition was preferred by the petitioner herein being aggrieved by the order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the respondent No. 3 and the judgment and order dated 13.02.2017 passed by the respondent No. 2 relating to a dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 herein.

2. The present dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 started with an application dated 03.11.2013 filed by one Shri Benon Ch. Marak before the Executive Member, In-charge Revenue, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council(GHADC), Tura seeking appointment of Smti Wenalish Ch. Marak daughter of late Jingrin Sangma as Nokma of the Sangsang- Nawalgre II-16 Akhing. On receipt of notice, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner has filed the written statement with a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the said application on the principles of resjudicata, waiver and acquiescence. In the meantime, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner expired and was duly substituted by the petitioner herein as Opposite Party.

3. It is further averred that the learned Executive Member heard the parties on the issue of maintainability, however, vide the impugned order dated 29.02.2016, the case was decided on merits in its entirety in favour of the respondent No 4.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 29.02.2016, the petitioner then preferred an appeal before the learned Chief Executive Member, who after hearing the parties has upheld the same and has dismissed the appeal vide judgment and order dated 13.02.2017. Hence this petition.

5. The background story leading to the present dispute according to the petitioners is in respect of the Sangsanggiri II-16(5) Akhing. About a century back, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent No. 4 herein, Late Jingrin Nokma had mortgaged a portion of the said Akhing the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, Late Asansing Mouzadar for a sum of Rs. 300/-(Rupees three hundred) only. Having failed to repay the said loan, the said Akhing was then divided into four parts by the then Deputy Commissioner, vide order dated 22.05.1920 and by such order, the land which was mortgaged to Asansing being plot A was allotted to him. Jingrin Nokma was allotted plot B.

6. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondent No. 4 not being satisfied with the said order dated 22.05.1920 in Case No. 58 Misc. of 1919-20 has approached the Deputy Commissioner, N.E. Perry for review of the same which was rejected vide order dated 30.04.1921. Yet again, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent No. 4 filed a complaint before the new Deputy Commissioner L.S. Bingeman who vide order dated 10.05.1923 has held that since the case was decided 2 years ago and Asansing obtained the land, the petitioner (Jingrin Nokma) must pay the Awil. As a last attempt, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent No. 4 once again raised up the issue before Mr. G.D. Walker, the Deputy Commissioner in the year 1929, who has rejected the same holding that the order dated 22.05.1920 cannot be appealed against due to lapse of time.

7. Mr. A.G. Momin, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that after a lapse of 84 years, the said application was filed before the learned Executive Member, In-charge Revenue to register the name of the respondent No. 4 as Nokma of the Sansang Nawalgre II-16 Akhing, which is non-existence.

8. It is also submitted that notice was issued upon the petitioners calling for filing of show cause against the said application dated 03.11.2013 and on the petitioner challenging the maintainability of the ground that it is hit by the principle of res judicata, waiver and acquiescence, although the learned Executive Member heard the parties on the issue of maintainability, yet while passing the impugned order, the case was decided on merits without framing of issues and recording of evidence of the witnesses.

9. It is further submitted that the learned Executive Member having given a go by to the