Back
2024 Supreme(Megh) 39
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
S. VAIDYANATHAN, CJ, W. DIENGDOH, J.
Minen Marak – Appellant
Versus
The Garo Hills Autonomous District Council – Respondent
W.A. No. 16 of 2023
Decided On : 08-07-2024
For the Appellant : P.T. Sangma
For the Respondents: S. Dey, S.G. Marpna, K.S. Kynjing, G. Syngkrem
The principle of res judicata prohibits revisiting issues that have been conclusively settled by a competent authority, ensuring finality in legal determinations.
Headnote:(A) Res Judicata - The principle of res judicata applies when a matter has been decided by a competent court, and attempts to re-agitate the issue after it has attained finality are impermissible - The issue of the Nokmaship was settled in 1935 and cannot be reopened. (Paras 5, 10, 11)
(B) Legal Proceedings - The court affirmed that repetitive petitions on settled issues are inadmissible, emphasizing the importance of finality in legal determinations. (Paras 6, 10)
Facts of the case:
The Writ Petition challenged an order dismissing an application based on res judicata regarding the Nokmaship of Marakapara Akhing, which was settled in 1935. The appellants alleged entitlement despite multiple prior rejections.
Findings of Court:
The order by the learned Single Judge was upheld, confirming that the issue was previously decided in 1935 and reiterated in 1961 and 2018.
Issues: The court addressed whether the issue regarding Nokmaship could be revisited and the implications of the principle of res judicata on the current legal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that since the matter was conclusively decided earlier, attempts to challenge it again lacked merit and contravened established legal principles.
Result: Writ Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge of a writ petition on grounds of res judicata. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court's recognition of finality and res judicata. (Para 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 3. arguments on the necessity of issue framing and a historical analogy. (Para 7 , 8 , 11) |
| 4. court's affirmation of non-interference in lower court's valid orders. (Para 9 , 12) |
| 5. final dismissal of the writ appeal. (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT :
S. VAIDYANATHAN, CJ.
1. The present Writ Appeal has been preferred, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.05.2023 passed in WP(C) No.377 of 2019, in and by which, the Writ Petition filed by the Writ Petitioner / R4 herein was allowed.
2. The case put forth by the Writ Petitioner / R4 herein before the Writ Court was that as against the order dated 13.09.2018 passed by the Executive Member/R3, dismissing the application as barred by the principle of res judicata, R4 in the Writ Petition had preferred an appeal in GHADC.Rev/Appeal No.9 of A/C of 2018 before R2, which was allowed on 05.07.2019, remanding back the case to the Executive Member with a direction to record the statement and evidences of the witnesses of both parties and thereafter, to transmit the record to the Court of the Chief Executive Member for final adjudication and determination of the issues in controversy between the parties. Aggrieved by the order dated 05.07.2019, the Writ Petitioner/R4 herein has approached the learned Single Judge by filing the Writ Petition, the order of which is impugned in the Writ Appeal, inasmuch as learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition on 08.05.2023 and set aside the order dated 05.07.2019. Against the said order, the present Writ Appeal has been preferred.
3. The Writ Petitioner/R4 herein vehemently contended that R3, being a custodian of the Nokmaship, the right and ownership of the office of the Nokma of Marakapara Akhing had already been merged with the Kharijor Akhing since 1935 and the predecessor of the writ petitioner had been made as a Nokma of the Akhing for several decades. It was further contended that neither the appellants 1 to 3 herein nor their predecessors in interest had made any claim or objection at any point of time. It was only in the year 2005, that too, after a lapse of many decades, the 1st Appellant herein moved a petition before the respondent No.2, seeking for an order of appointment of the Appellants 2 and 3 as Nokma of the Marakapara Akhing II-15 (A), which is clearly barred by the principle of estoppel, acquiescence and waiver and as such, the claim of the appellant 1 ought not to have been entertained at all.
4. It was stated in the writ petition that since the issue relating to Marakapara had been decided and settled way back in the year 1935 in Political Case No.12/1935 by the Deputy Commissioner and that order had also attained finality and it is barred by the principle of res judicata.
5. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties observed that the order of 13.07.1935 attained great significance and at this belated stage, the question of re-examination of the issue already decided cannot be gone into and it is impermissible to unsettle the settled issue. Learned Single Judge also observed that the subsequent challenges made in 1961 and 2018 had also been disposed of by the successive Executive Members, in-charge Land and Revenue in right earnest and the impugned order allowing reconsideration of the issue which has long been settled is squarely hit by the principle of res judicata and on that score, the writ petition filed by the respondent No.4 herein was allowed and the order impugned in the writ petition was set aside.
6. It was the stand of the Writ Petitioner / R4 herein that the appellants herein and Marakapara village had agitated for recovery of the Marakapara Akhing by filing an application before the Executive Member, in-charge Land and Revenue vide GDC Misc.Case No.30/1960-61 and by an order dated 05.05.1961, the prayer of the appellants was not entertaine
