HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
W. Diengdoh, J.
Mentilla B. Marak & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
G.H.A.D.C. & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 88 of 2018
Decided On : 17-05-2022
Land Dispute - Garo Hills Autonomous District Council - Garo Hills Autonomous Hills District (Social Customs and Usages) Validating Act, 1958 - The court discussed the events leading to the filing of the writ petition, the orders passed by the Executive Member and Chief Executive Member, and the lack of following judicial procedure. The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the Executive Member to conduct fresh proceedings by following due judicial procedure.
Fact of the Case:
The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner claimed a portion of land, leading to orders and appeals by the Executive Member and Chief Executive Member. The parties settled amicably, but disputes arose again, leading to the instant writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the orders were passed without following judicial procedure, as admitted by the parties. The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the Executive Member to conduct fresh proceedings by following due judicial procedure.
Issues: Dispute over land ownership, lack of following judicial procedure in the proceedings before the Executive Member and Chief Executive Member.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of following judicial procedure in the proceedings before the Executive Member and Chief Executive Member, as well as the admission by the parties that the orders were passed without following due procedure.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the Executive Member to conduct fresh proceedings by following due judicial procedure.
JUDGMENT
1. The events leading to the filing of this writ petition dates as far back as 09.03.1987, when the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner Late Kejan Sangma as Nokma of Bolwarigiri Akhing, made an application to the respondent No. 3 claiming a portion of the Doldegiri Akhing stating that the Agitok Mahari that is, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 4 and 5 had given a part of the land to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, but since there was no proper demarcation of the land, the entire portion of the said land was allegedly wrongly recorded in the name of the Agitok clan.
2. What follows is that, on receipt of the relevant application, the Executive Member, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC) had ordered that an enquiry be made by the Mauzadar who had in turn submitted a report dated 11.05.1987 stating that the claim of Late Kejan Sangma could not be supported by documents. On a further application submitted before the Executive Member for referring the matter to the Senior Assistant Settlement Officer, to conduct another enquiry which was accordingly done, the report filed thereafter also confirms that Late Kejan Sangma could not produce any documents to support his claim.
3. The Executive Member on receipt and perusal of the said report filed by the Sr. Assistant Settlement Officer, had directed for a full and proper enquiry, presumably under the provision of the Garo Hills Autonomous Hills District (Social Customs and Usages) Validating Act, 1958, to be made which was accordingly done so. After framing of issues and recording of evidence of the witnesses and upon hearing the parties, the Executive Member passed the order dated 21.12.1991 confirming that the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 4 & 5, Gonan Marak Nokma had taken money from the Bolwari clan and has agreed to give part of the Akhing land known as Doldegiri plot No. 2, now called Bolwarigiri Akhing since the year 1920. It was also directed that demarcation of the boundaries of the said Akhing be carried out.
4. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents No. 4 & 5 then preferred an appeal before the Chief Executive Member, GHADC who while disposing of the appeal vide Judgment and Order dated 02.09.1993, had upheld the order of the Executive Member.
5. Again, being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Executive Member and the Chief Executive Member, the respondent's predecessor-in-interest approached the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court by way of writ petition being Civil Rule No. 950/94. Upon hearing the parties, the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 04.08.1995 had quashed the impugned Judgment and Order dated 02.09.1993 of the Chief Executive Member and had remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Chief Executive Member.
6. During pendency of the matter before the Chief Executive Member, the parties in dispute have filed a joint petition before the Executive Member in-charge Revenue, with a prayer to prepare the map and demarcate the disputed Akhing on the ground that the parties have settled their differences amicably. The Executive Member acknowledging the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties had vide order dated 19.05.2014 directed that the parties prepare separate maps of the respective portion of the said Akhing land occupied by them according to the boundaries and dhips (pillars) indicated in the records. Accordingly, the map and the boundary demarcation was prepared by the Mauzadar.
7. The petitioners were however surprised to find out that the respondents No. 4 & 5 herein have preferred an appeal before the Chief Executive Member against the order dated 19.05.2014 passed by the Executive Member and which appeal was finally disposed of vide order dated 22.03.2018 by the Chief Executive Member, whereby it was directed that, the Mauzadar to prepare separate Akhing map for both the clans without any deviation from the boundary dhips as shown in the map contained in the Mauzadar
AI
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to follow due judicial procedure in land dispute proceedings before the Executive Member and Chief Executive Member.
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 o....
The judgment establishes the importance of historical documents and evidence in determining Nokmaship claims, while also emphasizing the jurisdictional validity of historical orders and their relevan....
The main legal point established is the importance of parties having the opportunity to produce evidence and matters being decided in accordance with law.
Encroachment of Land - Writ not maintainable as Disputed question of facts - To avail alternate available remedy.
The cancellation of the Nokmaship was found to be ultra vires and beyond jurisdiction, emphasizing the supervisory role of the High Court under Article 226.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.