IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the importance of historical documents and evidence in determining Nokmaship claims, while also emphasizing the jurisdictional validity of historical orders and their relevance in present disputes.

JUDGMENT

W. Diengdoh, J. - The appellants are said to be members of the Mangsang Khalcheng clan and the respondent No. 4 herein is a member of the Chambugong Wage clan. The dispute is primarily between the abovementioned.

2. What could be gleaned from the records is that, in the year 2001 after the death of the last recorded Nokma, Shri Train Marak of the Mangsang clan, the appellant, Smti. Sibilish M. Sangma representing the female line of the Mangsang Khalcheng clan had filed a petition before the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC) to get her name registered as a joint Nokma of the Daronggre II-20(16) Akhing and the same was registered as GDC/REV/Case No. 8 A/C of 2001-2002.

3. At this juncture, it may be pointed out that the assertion of the appellants is that many years ago the Daronggre II-20(16) Akhing land was acquired by way of purchase from the Koches by the predecessors of the appellants and the respondent No. 4 jointly. The said Akhing was, since 1926, jointly represented continuously by Nokmas from the Mangsang clan firstly by Shri Jingran Marak and his wife Smti. Megan Sangma and now by Shri Dipson Ch. Marak along with Smti. Sibilish M. Sangma and Shri. Ringa Sangma from the Chambugong clan now represented by Smti. Somjimoni Ch. Marak who is the wife of late Ballendro Sangma since deceased.

4. For the purpose of elucidation, it would be proper to understand the subject matter of the controversy, that is, the dispute as regards the joint Nokmaship of the Akhing land. An Akhing has been defined in Garo Hills Regulation No. II of 1954 and Act No. 1 of 1960 as:-

'(a) any land held by a clan or 'machong' under the custody of the head of the clan or 'machong' called 'Nokma' recognized as such by the District Council;

(b) any land held collectively by a particular community of a particular village or group of villages which is under the custody of the head of the said community or group of villages called 'Nokma' recognized as such by the District Council'.

5. On consideration of the GDC/REV/Case No. 8 of 2001-2002, the Executive Member, Incharge Revenue rejected the claim of the appellants as petitioners vide order dated 07.01.2009. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants herein then preferred an appeal before the Chief Executive Member (CEM), GHADC, who vide order dated 05.02.2010 refused to interfere with the said order of the Executive Member.

6. Not being satisfied with the order passed by the Executive Member and the order passed in the related appeal before the Chief Executive Member, the appellants as petitioners then approached this Court by way of a writ petition being WP(C) No. 96(SH) of 2010 and vide order dated 14.09.2011, this Court set aside the order dated 07.01.2009 passed by the Executive Member and the order dated 05.02.2010 passed in the related appeal and remanded the matter to the Executive Member, GHADC for fresh trial.

7. On remand, the matter was registered as GHADC/REV 25 A/C of 2011 and was duly taken up by the Executive Member, Incharge Revenue who, upon appearance of the parties, framed as many as eleven issues. After examination of witnesses and upon hearing the parties, vide order dated 30.07.2015, the Executive Member came to a finding that the petitioners/appellants herein were never registered or got themselves recorded as Nokmas at any point of time and as such, no case had been made out in their favour. However, inspite of this finding, the Executive Member observed that due to the existence of an order dated 11.01.1956 passed by the then Chief Executive Member who has acknowledged that the Daronggre II 20(16) Akhing was the joint Akhing of the Chambugong and Mangseng clan, maintenance of status was directed to be observed.

8. The respondent No. 4 being dissatisfied with the order dated 30.07.2015 then preferred an appeal before the Chief Executive Member, GHADC in GHADC/REV. Appeal No. 54 A/C of 2015 and after consideration of the same, the Chief Executive Member vide order da