IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is the importance of parties having the opportunity to produce evidence and matters being decided in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. P.T. Sangma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1-3, Mr. P. Yobin, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5.

2. The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 17.03.2017, passed by the Chief Executive Member, whereby an order dated 23.08.2016 passed by the Executive Member I/C Land and Revenue, G.H.A.D.C against Case No. Rev.7/A/C of 2015 has been upheld.

3. Apart from the grievance of the petitioners and their claims to be the daughter and son-in-law of the last recorded Nokma and as such entitled to be notified as Nokma, what can be seen from the materials before this Court is that, this instant matter was the subject of earlier writ proceedings namely WP(C) No. 35 of 2014. This Court by order dated 09.02.2015, while disposing of the said writ petition at Paragraphs- 5 and 6, had directed as follows:

'5. On perusal of the proceeding of District GHADC-REV. No. 9 A.C. of 2013 before the Executive Member, I/C Land and Revenue, GHADC and also the proceeding of GDC-REV/Appeal No. 33 A/C of 2013 before the Chief Executive Member, GHADC, Tura, it is clear that the parties had not had opportunity of proving their respective case by producing oral and documentary evidence. As stated above, the alleged Deed of Relinquishment dated 15.06.2010 is required to be proved by the respondents No. 4 & 5 in the manner prescribed by law in the appropriate forum; and on mere production of the alleged Deed of Relinquishment dated 15.06.2010 by the respondents No. 4 & 5, the authority cannot rely on it unless and until it is proved in the manner prescribed by law.

6. In the above factual backdrop, 4 (four) important issues such as (i) whether the petitioner No. 2 is the substituted wife of the petitioner No. 1 offered by the Maharis or not? (ii) whether the petitioner No. 1 had left the house of the Nokma i.e. the house of late Bisan Ch. Marak or not? (iii) whether the petitioner No. 1 executed the alleged Deed of Relinquishment dated 15.06.2010 or not? and (iv) whether the Maharis of the concerned clan had appointed the respondents No. 4 & 5 as Nokma of Rangthangsora Akhing land or not? are required to be decided. As these issues were not decided by the Executive Member, I/C Land and Revenue, GHADC in District GHADC-REV. No. 9 A.C. of 2013 and also the Chief Executive Member, GHADC in GDC-REV/Appeal No. 33 A/C of 2013, the Executive Member, I/C Land and Revenue, GHADC is directed to decide the aforementioned issues after giving opportunity to the party to put up their case as well as allowing them to produce oral and documentary evidence to support their case. It is further made clear that the alleged Deed of Relinquishment dated 15.06.2010 is required to be proved in the manner provided by law keeping in view of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. So as to enable the Executive Member, IC Land and Revenue to decide the above issues, the impugned order dated 13.06.2013 passed in District GHADC-REV No. 9 A.C. of 2013 and order dated 16.01.2014 of Chief Executive Member, GHADC passed in GDC-REV/Appeal No. 33 A/C of 2013 are hereby set aside and quashed. Till the Executive Member, I/C Land and Revenue, GHADC finally decided the above issues, the Secretary, Executive Committee, GHADC shall maintain and look after the Akhing land called Rangthangsora. The Executive Member, I/C Land and Revenue shall decide the case as expeditiously as possible not later than 6 (months) from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order.'

4. A perusal of the directions as contained therein in the said 2 paragraphs indicated that the Executive Member, I/C was to examine the matter on the issues as given in the said order. It appears that the Executive Member, I/C on the remand of the matter took up the same and disposed the case by order dated 23.08.2016, deciding the matter in favour of the respondents. It is submitted by Mr. P.T. Sangma, learned counsel on behalf of