Tenilla Nongrura Marak and Others vs The Garo Hills Autonomous District Council and Others

T. Nandakumar Singh, J.

Heard Mr. P. Yobin, learned counsel for the appellants, Ms. N Gurung, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1-3 and Mr. H. Abraham, learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 and 5.

This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.09.2013 passed in WP(C) No. (SH) 213/2013 wherein and where-under, the learned Single Judge was of the considered view that "the land in question belongs to the clan of the writ petitioner. The issue was raised in the earlier round of litigations. The impugned order appears to have been passed by the authority concerned in compliance of Court order dated 02.03.2012 passed in WP(C) No. (SH) 229/2011. In fact it is the fourth round of litigation. The correctness of the impugned order cannot be examined by this Court as an appellate court, in its writ jurisdiction. The order suffers from no illegality regarding the manner, the decision has been taken. This Court is not inclined further to interfere with the matter in its writ jurisdiction", and after making this observation, the learned Single Judge did not entertain the writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. (SH) 213/2012 filed by the present appellants.

After perusal of the record as well as after hearing the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it appears that the matter in issue i.e. whether the land-in-question belongs to the clan of the writ petitioner had been agitated by the petitioner and considered by the High Court in earlier four litigations i.e. (i) judgment and order dated 16.06.1988 of the Division Bench comprising of Hon''ble Mr. Justice B.L. Hansaria (as then he was) and Hon''ble Mr. Justice S.P. Rajkhowa passed in Civil Rule No. 33/84; (ii) judgment and order dated 08.04.1994 of the Division Bench comprising of Hon''ble Mr. Justice J.N. Sarma and Hon''ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik (as then he was) passed in Civil Rule No. 1574/1989; (iii) judgment and order dated 11.07.2006 passed in WP(C) No. 112 (SH) 2004 and; (iv) in the judgment and order dated 02.03.2012 passed in WP(C) No. (SH) 229/2011, this Court decided that "the question as to which clan the Akhing land belongs unless decided, the issue of Nokmaship becomes entirely irrelevant inasmuch as, the Nokma is to reign its authority over the Akhing land"; and after such finding, this Court remanded the matter to the Chief Executive Member, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, Tura to decide the said issue.

It appears from the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants and also from the record that the only case of the appellants in the writ petitions as well as writ appeal is that the said issue was not properly decided. As stated above, the said issue had already been considered and decided in the said earlier writ petitions. At the last, the said issue was finally decided by the Chief Executive Member, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, Tura under his judgment and order dated 12.03.2013 passed in GHADC-REV. Appeal No. 27 A/C of 2012 in compliance with the observations and directions made by this Court in the earlier judgments. This Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 23.09.2013 passed in WP(C) No. (SH) 213/2012, had come to the finding that the correctness of the impugned order i.e. judgment and order dated 12.03.2013 of the Chief Executive Member, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, Tura in GHADC-REV. Appeal No. 27 A/C of 2012, cannot be examined by this Court as an appellate court in its writ jurisdiction. In this factual backdrop, we are not convinced with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the said issue had not been decided properly. We also reiterate that the issue of fact for which examination of witnesses and also examination of documents are required cannot be properly decided in the writ proceedings as if the High Court is the appellate authority.

For the foregoing discussions, we cannot persuade ourselves to come to the finding that the impugned judgment and order dated 23.09.2013 passed in WP(C) No. (SH) 213/2012 is irregular and illegal. Accordingly, this writ appeal is devoid of merit and it is dismissed.