AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This review petition has been filed seeking review of Judgment and Order dated 24.10.2018 passed in Civil Revision Petition No. 24 of 2016. The two main grounds for review are grounds (iii) & (v) which are quoted herein below:-
"(iii) For the reason that the specific ground urged in the said Civil revision Petition No. 24 of 2016 that the Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Elaka) Act, 1991 is not applicable in the instant case as that Act came into force on 17.05.2006 whereas the cause of action for the Title Suit No. 8 of 2011, arose much earlier on 12.07.2005, has not been addressed nor answered by the said Judgment and Order dated 24.10.2018;
(v) For the reason that the finding in the said Judgment and Order dated 24.10.2018 in the said Civil revision Petition No. 24 of 2016, to the effect that question of jurisdiction can be raised before or after the filing of the written statement, as a question of fact, rather than a question of law, without any application of mind to the arguments forwarded in that regard, is also a gross error apparent on the face of the said Judgment and Order dated 24.10.2018."
The above noted two grounds according to the review petitioner were not addressed or answered by the order dated 24.10.2018, and has resulted an error being apparent in the fact of the record.
I have heard Mr. S. Chakrawarty, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. E. Slong, learned counsel for the review petitioner, Mr. K.S. Kynjing, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. L. Shongwan, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 2, Mr. T.T. Diengdoh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. C.C.T. Sangma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. V.G.K. Kynta, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. V. Mawlieh, learned counsel for the profoma respondent No. 4.
Mr. S. Chakrawarty, learned senior counsel on behalf of the review petitioner submits that though pointed contentions had been raised both in the pleadings and in the submissions with regard to the applicability of The Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Elaka) Act, 1991, this Court while disposing of the revision petition had held the same to be applicable without ascribing any reasons. He further submits that the finding in the judgment dated 24.10.2018 to the effect that question of jurisdiction can be raised before or after the filing of the written statement as a question of fact rather than the question of law is also a gross error apparent on the fact of the said judgment and order dated 24.10.2018. He lastly submits that the failure to respond to arguments made on behalf of the petitioner is also a serious error apparent on the fact of the said judgment. He therefore prays that the review petition be allowed and the civil revision be heard on the points so raised therein.
Mr. K.S. Kynjing, learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondents No. 1 & 2 submits that it is a settled preposition that all disputes concerning boundaries between Elakas is a matter that has to be settled by and adjudicated by an Administrative Authorities such as the Syiem and the Executive Committee, KHADC. He next submits that the review application is without any substance, inasmuch as, it is not a fact that the arguments so advanced by the petitioner were not considered at the time of passing of the judgment and order dated 24.10.2018, especially with regard to the applicability of The Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Elaka) Act, 1991. On the scope of review learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the case of Lily Thomas vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650 and submits that a review cannot be an appeal in disguise and that the powers of review can be exercised for correction of the mistakes and not to substitute a view. He submits that it is not the case of the review petitioner that they had discovered any new and important matter which could not brought to the notice of the court at the time of passing the judgment. He lastly submits that all the points having been addressed by the order dated 24.10.2018, the review deserves no consideration and is liable to be dismissed.
Mr. T.T. Diengdoh, learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondent No. 3 has in addition to the submissions made by the counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 has drawn the attention of this Court to Para-5 of the judgment and order dated 24.10.2018 and submits that the matter was adjudicated fully and has followed the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Lokendro vs U Driwell Myntry, the heir of Kendro, Ranick & Ors. ALR 1970 Assam & Nagaland 242. With regard to the other point of applicability of The Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Elaka) Act, 1991, he submits that even if the Act was non-existent, a civil suit was not maintainable in a boundary dispute case. He further submits that the suit was instituted by the review petitioner in the year 2011 after the Act had come into force and as such the finding of this Court in the order under review is correct. To conclude his submissions, the learned senior counsel has referred to Section 6 of The Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Elaka) Act, 1991 which provides as follows:-
"6. Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 5 above, every boundary dispute or appeal, pending on the date of commencement of this Act before the Executive Committee, shall be transferred for disposal by the Tribunal constituted under sub-sections (1) and (2) above and the decision of the Tribunal shall be final."
He submits as per this Section even a pending dispute will be governed by the Act. While closing his arguments, learned senior counsel asserts that no ground for review has been made out and the review application is liable to be dismissed as such.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the judgment sought to be reviewed on the grounds as projected by the petitioner. With regard to the first ground, i.e. the application of The Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Elaka) Act, 1991 and the second ground regarding the question of jurisdiction before and after the filing of the written statement, Paragraphs- 7 and 8 of the judgment has recorded the findings which are reproduced herein below: -
"7. I have perused the impugned judgment dated 27.05.2016 passed by the learned Judge, District Council Court, Shillong in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2013 and found that the learned Court below has taken care of the issue of jurisdiction and referred to Section 5(1) of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Elaka) Act, 1991, wherein it is clearly mentioned that if a boundary dispute arises between two or more villages of the same Elaka, the dispute shall be referred by the village or villages concerned to the Chief and his Durbar for decision.
The learned Court below also reproduced Section 5(2) of the said Act which reads as under:
"An appeal against any order and decision of the Chief and his Durbar under Sub-Section (1) above, shall be preferred by the aggrieved party or parties, by a petition to the tribunal constituted by the Council for the purpose and the decision of the tribunal shall be final".
After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties as well as on perusal of the impugned judgment referred above, it is an undisputed fact that the main issue involve is a boundary dispute between the villages. If it is so, Section 5(1) of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Elaka) Act, 1991 as well as Section 5(2) of the said Act is applicable. It is also a fact that the question of jurisdiction can be raised at any point of time, whether before the written statement or after the written statement. Therefore, I do not find any scope to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 27.05.2016 passed by the learned Judge, District Council Court, Shillong in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2013."
It is settled law that findings arrived at, cannot be substituted by another view on the basis of a review application as sought to be done in the instant case. Further, no new facts or discovery have been placed to justify a relook or review at the judgment in question. The review petitioner by the instant review application is seeking to re-argue the case which is not permitted considering the narrow scope of review jurisdiction. There being no apparent error on the face of the record and no substance that warrants re-examination or re-consideration, the instant review application is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.