Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MEGH) 147
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Mr. Justice S.Vaidyanathan, CJ, Mr. Justice W.Diengdoh, J
MINEN MARAK AND ANR. – Appellant
Versus
GARO HILLS AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL AND 3 ORS. – Respondent
WA 16 / 2023
Mr. P.T. Sangma, Adv; Mr. S. Dey, Adv; Ms. S.G. Marpna, Adv for R/1-3; Mr. K.S. Kynjing, Sr.Adv; Mr. G. Syngkrem, Adv for R/4
The principle of res judicata bars re-examination of issues that have attained finality, ensuring legal certainty and preventing repetitive litigation.
Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Principle of Res Judicata - The Writ Appeal challenges the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petition and setting aside the order dated 05.07.2019, which remanded the case back to the Executive Member. The court emphasized that the issue regarding the Nokmaship had been settled since 1935 and reiterated that re-examination of settled issues is impermissible. (Paras 2, 5, 10)
(B) Legal Finality - The court noted that the principle of res judicata bars the appellants from re-agitating issues that have been previously decided, highlighting the importance of finality in legal proceedings. (Paras 4, 10)
Facts of the case:
The Writ Petitioner contended that the right to the Nokmaship had merged with the Kharijor Akhing since 1935, and the appellants' claims were barred by res judicata due to previous decisions. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge's order was upheld, affirming that the issue had been settled and could not be reopened. (Paras 5, 12)
Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the appellants could challenge the settled Nokmaship rights and the applicability of res judicata. (Paras 4, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the principle of res judicata prevents the re-examination of issues that have attained finality, emphasizing the need for legal certainty. (Paras 10, 12)
Result: Writ Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contention regarding res judicata (Para 3) |
| 2. finality of the 1935 order (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. rejection of appellants' claims (Para 7) |
| 4. re-examination of settled issues (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. comparison to king bruce (Para 11) |
| 6. dismissal of the writ appeal (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGEMENT
(Made by Hon’ble, the Chief Justice)
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 entertained. The Executive Member, in the subsequent order dated 13.09.2018 also clearly stated that th
