AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. V.K.Jindal, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. M.K.Marak on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.Dey, learned standing
counsel for the respondents-GHADC and Mr. E.B.Sangma, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent No. 1 & 2.
The petitioner''s case is a nutshell is that:
By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner herein has prayed for setting aside the impugned order
dated 23-7-2015 passed by Shri W.D.Shira, Executive Member, I/C Land Revenue GHADC, in REV No. 175 A/C of 2015 and
the impugned order dated 17-08-2016 passed by Shri D.T.Sangma, Chief Executive Member, GHADC, Tura in REV Appeal No.
53 A/C of 2015, by which orders, the Private Respondent No. 1 & 2 have been also declared as joint Nokmas along with the
petitioner relating to Selbalgiri Akhing III-31 (19). The Petitioner has also prayed for remand of the case to the E.M, I/C, Land
Revenue to hear the matter afresh and pass a reasoned and speaking order on all the issues framed by him and after taking into
consideration the old records relating to the aforesaid Akhing land. The main grounds of challenge are this that though the E.M, I/C
Land Revenue framed the issues, allowed the parties to adduce both oral and documentary evidence, but while passing the impugned
order he has neither discussed nor decided any of the issues and the impugned orders were passed by the learned Court below
without taking into consideration the old records relating to the Akhing in question.
Selbalgiri Akhing is an ''Ajoma Akhing'' (which is inherited) and which was originally registered in the name of late Jangging A.
Sangma, Member of British Empire and his wife Sumi CH. Marak. The said Akhing belongs to ""Chambugong Clan"" and is inherited
by the Petitioner Rosaline Ch. Marak, grand daughter of late Jangging Lasker and her late husband Kandura K. Sangma, who are the
present registered Akhing Nokmas of Selbalgiri Akhing.
Chandalbret Akhing"" is Amathe Akhing (acquired by litigation), which was acquired by the predecessor in interest of the
Respondent No. 1 viz; late Goram Sangma by litigation with one Jangran of Digrangre Village. There is no dispute that the
Respondent No. 1 is the grand son-in-law of late Goram Nokma. The dispute between late Goram Nokma and late Jangran Nokma
was taken in the Appeal No. 13/1925 in the court of Commissioner, Assam Valley Division and thereafter the Revision was filed
before the Governor of Assam in Council, which was dismissed vide order dated 18-10-1927 and the Review Application filed was
also dismissed vide order dated 23-4-1928. Further, noting of the Deputy Commissioner on the report dated 20-2-1935 of Shri
Dichang Sangma, Mouzadar III and his subsequent clarification dated 23-3-34 also clearly indicates that the name of the Goram
Sangma as Ajske Nokma (joint Nokma) of Selbalgiri Akhing was wrongly included in the map of Selbalgiri Akhing as he did not
reside in his own Akhing of Chandalbretgiri Akhing but he resided in Selbalgiri Akhing. The said orders, which were passed many
decades before clearly indicates that the predecessor in interest of Respondent No. 1 were the Nokma of Chandalbretgiri Akhing,
which was acquired by their predecessor in interest from the predecessor in interest of the Respondent No. 2 through a long
protracted litigation. The name of Goram Sangma was wrongly included in the map of the Selbalgiri Akhing as he resided in that
Akhing. Therefore, the old records kept and maintained in the office of the Executive Member I/C Land Revenue, GHADC clearly
establishes that neither the Respondent No. 1 nor his predecessor in interest has any land in Selbalgiri Akhing, which belonged to the
Petitioner and his predecessor in interest.
Though predecessor in interest of the Private Respondent No. 2, namely Jangran Marak lost the dispute in respect of Chandalbretgiri
Akhing to Goram, but his successor in interest continued to claim such right and they (Smti. Injak Sangma and her late husband Shri
Mijan Marak) managed to register themselves as Akhing Nokma in the year 1982 - 83 without their predecessor in interest being
Nokma at any point of time in respect of Selbalgiri Akhing. They relied upon the map prepared on 19-3-1930 by Dichang Sangma,
which was never approved by the Deputy Commissioner. Moreover, the noting on the report dated 20-2-1934 of the Dichang
Sangma, Mouzadar III and the subsequent clarification submitted by him clearly shows that the inclusion of Jasing as third Nokma of
Manda Mahari from whom the Respondent No. 2 is claiming the title was added by the Mouzadar on the information furnished by
Manda Mahari and which was not accepted by the authority concerned in the year 1930.
The Petitioner came to know about the rival claims of the Respondent No. 1 and 2 only in the year 2005 when the question of
payment of land compensation cropped up for acquisition of land of Selbalgiri Akhing for construction/ expansion of National
Highway. Both the Respondent No. 1 and 2 also claimed the compensation.
The Petitioner consequently filed an Application under section 8 (1) of the Garo Hills Autonomous District (Social Customs and
Usages) Validating Act, 1958 as amended for declaring that the Private Respondent No. 1 and 2 have no right of Nokmaship over
the Selbalgiri Akhing land. Both the learned Member I/C Land Revenue and the Chief Executive Member without deciding any of the
issue framed by the learned Court below and without taking into consideration the old records of the Council, declared the
Respondent No. 1 & 2 as also the joint Nokma of Selbalgiri Akhing land, which otherwise exclusively belongs to the Petitioner and
her predecessor in interest from the time immemorial. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has filed the instant petition.
Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a Nokma and this is undisputed, but unfortunately the Executive Member and
Chief Executive Member, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (for short GHADC), Tura passed two orders dated 23-07-2015 and 17-08-
2016 by which they declared the respondents No. 1 & 2 also Nokmas without following the procedure of law, so necessary direction may be
issued.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 2 also claims that respondents No. 1 & 2 are also Nokmas, so the petition
may be dismissed.
Learned standing counsel for the respondents-GHADC submits that evidence was taken but issues were not framed while declaring the
respondents No. 1 & 2 as Nokmas.
After hearing the submission advanced by the learned counsels for the parties, I am of the considered view that the matter involves disputed
facts and since disputed facts are involved a writ court cannot decide the matter and the matter needs to be decided afresh by the lower court or
the Executive Member and Chief Executive Member, GHADC, Tura. Hence, the impugned orders referred above are hereby set aside and the
matter is remanded back with a direction to look into the matter afresh after hearing both the parties and frame the issues and to dispose the matter
as early as possible. In the meantime, both the parties are directed not to alter or alienate the land in question till the matter is decided by the
Executive Member and the Chief Executive Member, GHADC, Tura. If necessary, the administration of the Akhing land can be looked after by
the Secretary, Executive Committee, GHADC, Tura who should see that neither of the parties should alter or alienate the land in question.
With this observation and direction, the matter stands disposed of. Registry is directed to send the copy of this judgment and order to the
Secretary, Executive Committee, GHADC, Tura.