AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. SP Mahanta, learned Sr. counsel, assisted by Ms. R.Colney on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. KS Kynjing, learned Sr.
counsel, assisted by Mr. P.Yobin on behalf of the respondent No. 6 and Mr. S.Dey on behalf of the respondents- GHADC. Mr. S.Sen Gupta,
learned State counsel is present on behalf of the State.
The petitioner''s case in a nutshell is that:
On 04.01.1930 (L) Ranma Megam Sangma and his wife Rotdi Rongrin Marak (Predecessor of the Writ Petitioners) were
confirmed as Nokma of Nawa Rongcheng Akhing No. 1-1(5) from the Rongrin Clan by the Commissioner of Assam Valley Division
Mr. A. Bentick in Misc. Case No. 66 of 1926-27. Subsequently, on 21.11.1965 Shri. Ongran Mrong Marak and his wife Rano
Manda Sangma (Predecessor of respondent No.6) were appointed as temporary Nokma of Nawa Rongcheng Akhing No. 1-1(5)
from the Manda Clan and their appointment was regularized on 03.12.1966.
Shri. Siam Madoni Sangma (Predecessor) of the Writ Petitioners filed objection petition against the said appointment of Ongran
Mrong Marak and his wife Rano Manda Sangma before the GHADC and was registered as GDC-REV No. 96 A/C of 1966-67 in
which Order dated 26.07.1967 was passed by E.M., I/C Revenue GHADC fixing 21.08.1967 for orders, but no orders were
passed and subsequently an Appeal was filed by the Writ Petitioners which was dismissed vide Order dated 11.04.1991 by the
CEM, GHADC in GDC -REV Appeal No.10(Misc) of 1989. Being aggrieved by the said Order the Writ Petitioners filed a Writ
Petition before the Hon''ble High Court being numbered as Civil Rule No. 3579 of 1991/WP (SH) 54 of 1991 against the Order
dated 11.04.1991and the Hon''ble High Court passed the Judgment and Order dated 03.09.1996 in Civil Rule No.3579 of
1991/WP (SH) 54 of 1991 directing the Respondent CEM, GHADC to consider the matter afresh by giving chance to the
Petitioners (Annexure-1). The Predecessors of the Respondent No.6 filed a Writ Appeal No.279 of 1997/ Writ Appeal No. 4(SH)
of 1998 alongwith Misc. Case No. 74 (SH) 1997 against the Judgment and Order dated 03.09.1996 which was dismissed by the
Hon''ble High Court vide Order dated 03.07.1998. (Annexure-2)
In the meantime, Respondent No.6 Smti. Prosthina M. Sangma was appointed as Nokma of Nawa Rongcheng Akhing No.1-1(5)
vide Order dated 07.12.2009 most illegally by the Respondent Executive Member incharge Revenue GHADC (Annexure -5). As
per the Judgment and Order dated 03.09.1996 Writ Petitioners filed a Petition for rehearing the case which was registered as
GHADC REV No. 20 A/C of 2011 and on 03.12.2013 the Writ Petitioners filed a Written Argument in the said GHADC REV No.
20 A/C of 2011 (Annexure-3) and vide Impugned Judgment and Order dated 17.12.2013 passed by the CEM, GHADC in
GHADC REV No. 20 A/C of 2011, the Appeal of the Writ Petitioners was dismissed without framing issues and without recording
any evidence (Annexure-4). Being aggrieved by the impugned Order dated 07.12.2009 (Annexure -5) and Impugned Judgment and
Order dated 17.12.2013 (Annexure -4) the Writ Petitioner prefers this petition praying for setting aside and quashing the said
Annexure -4 and 5 amongst other prayer.
Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner, Mr. SP Mahanta submits that this matter earlier travelled to the Hon''ble High Court in the year 1991 and
was registered as Civil Rule No. 3579 of 1991/WP (SH) 54 of 1991. Hon''ble High Court was pleased to call for the record and after hearing the
parties passed an elaborate order dated 03-09-1996 which is on record and directed the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (for short
GHADC) to try the matter afresh and allowed the writ petition. Thereafter, learned Sr. counsel also further submits that a Writ Appeal. No. 4
(SH) of 1998 was filed which was dismissed on 03-07-1998, but unfortunately the lower court case record has not reached the GHADC. As a
result, the Trial Court found it difficult to pass appropriate judgment or order, hence this instant writ petition.
Though an impugned order was passed by the Executive Member, I/c Revenue, GHADC on 07-12-2009 in GHADC-Rev No.109 A/C of
2009, thereafter, on the basis of the petition and written arguments, an impugned judgment and order was passed in GHADC-Rev. No. 20 A/C of
2011, dated 17-12-2013 by the learned CEM, GHADC who dismissed the petition.
Learned counsel for the respondents-GHADC, Mr. S.Dey submits that it is a fact that the record has become untraceable as it never transmit
from the then High Court to the GHADC.
After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties, I could not understand in absence of evidence and other
documents, how a prudent and effective judgment was passed by the Trial Court, which in my view is not possible at all. Therefore, I feel a fresh
time bound trial is necessary to find and to give proper adjudication. Therefore, the impugned order dated 07-12-2009 passed by the Executive
Member, I/c Revenue, GHADC in GHADC-Rev No. 109 A/c of 2009 and impugned order dated 17-12-2013 passed in GHADC-Rev/No. 20
A/C of 2011 by CEM, GHADC are hereby set aside. CEM GHADC is directed to start fresh proceedings and to proceed with fresh evidence
and issues in accordance with the guidelines given in the judgment passed by the Hon''ble High Court in WP (SH) 54 of 1991, dated 03-09-1996.
In the meantime, Registrar General is directed to find the case record bearing Civil Rule No. 3579 of 1991/WP (SH) 54 of 1991 in the case of
Shri. Kolami Sangma vs State of Meghalaya & Ors immediately and if found, to be transmit to District Council.
With this observation and direction, the instant writ petition is allowed and stands disposed of.