GONOTH MANDA SANGMA Vs. DEWIN GABIL MOMIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2010 passed in WP(C) No. 389 (SH) of 2004, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition of the respondents, by quashing and setting aside the order dated 18.02.1985 passed by the Executive Member, GHADC and orders dated and 09.02.1999 and 30.08.2004 of the Chief Executive Member, GHADC. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that by the order impugned herein, the operation of the office of Nokma, of Sasatgiri Akhing as per the Garo customary practice, has been disrupted irreparably. Hence the appeal.

(2.) Mr. R. Kar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Akhing in question namely; Sasatgiri Akhing is one of the oldest recorded Akhings in the Garo Hills, and that the respondents herein were given only a limited right over the Nokmaship of the said Akhing; which he contends, was subject to orders dated 04.08.1947 and 20.10.1952, passed by the then Deputy Commissioners of Garo Hills, wherein the said matter at an earlier point, had been adjudicated. Learned counsel submits though adjudicated, the matter had not attained finality and a challenge to, or modification of these orders was not barred by the principles or resjudicata, inasmuch as, the same were conditional orders, subject to future eventualities. Mr. R. Kar, seeks to defend the order dated 18.02.1985 passed by the Executive Member, GHADC in GDC Rev. No. 88 of 1984-85 and orders dated 09.02.1999 and 30.08.2004, passed by the Chief Executive Member, GHADC in appeal and review, by maintaining that the same were not bad in law, nor barred by the principles of resjudicata, but in fact were passed in accordance with, and by the application of prevalent Garo customary law. Learned counsel therefore prays that the impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2010 having failed to consider the matter in its proper perspective be set aside and quashed.

(3.) Mr. K. Paul, learned counsel for the respondents in his brief submissions submits that the issue of Nokmaship of the respondent No.1, could not have been revisited, at the instance of the writ appellants, in view of the orders dated 04.08.1947 and 20.10.1952. He submits that the orders stood unchallenged for decades and that, the eventuality that the learned counsel for the appellants had alluded to, such as the desertion of the respondent No. 1 from the Akhing, or her failure to have female issues which would have prevented her from Nokmaship were totally absent. He submits that admittedly and as evidenced by a judicial proceeding, the respondent No. 1 never deserted the Akhing and admittedly further she has two daughters. In fact, one of them has been arrayed as respondent No. 4 by the writ appellants themselves. He submits that the orders dated 04.08.1947 and 20.10.1952 having attained finality, there was no scope for the Executive Member and Chief Executive Member, GHADC, to have engaged in the exercise of overhauling and disrupting a settled position. As such, he prays that the writ appeal be dismissed.