SMEK MARBOH Vs. KHASI HILLS AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful writ petitioners filed the present intra -court appeal against the common judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.02.2008 wherein and where -under, the learned Single Judge held that the facts disputed by the respondents, pleaded in the writ petition, basing on which the writ petitioners (present appellants) prayed for the relief are necessary to be proved by producing documents and oral evidence and also the disputed facts cannot be decided by the Court in the summary proceeding like the one under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and also the revision petition i.e. CR(P) No. 52(SH)2004 against the order dated 14.10.2004 passed by the learned Special Judicial Officer (Reference Court) under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for rejecting the application filed by the writ petitioners/appellants for restraining the further proceedings of the Reference Case under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the said Act of 1894") is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed. Heard Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. L Khyriem, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. V.G.K. Kynta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Thangkhiew, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 -5. Also heard Ms. P. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 and Mr. K.S. Kynjing, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. Kharmih, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7.

(2.) THE graphic facts leading to the filing of the writ petition No. 271(SH)2004 are mentioned in the impugned common judgment and order dated 29.02.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge; and accordingly, in order to avoid repetition of facts, only the bare facts sufficient for deciding the present appeal are recapitulated.

(3.) IT is categorically pleaded case of the writ petitioners/appellants that in Tynring area, there are 8(eight) villages i.e. villages of the writ petitioners/appellants and 2(two) others; and Tynring village does not cover the villages of the writ petitioners/appellants. Thus, the status of the respondent No. 7 is only the Headman of Tynring village and he is not a Sordar Raid. The respondent No. 7 has never had any role to play in the administration of the villages of the writ petitioners/appellants for the last more than 50 years and that the villages of the writ petitioners/appellants had been enjoying full ownership rights over their village lands. Under the Khasi customary law of Ri Raid system under which personal occupation of lands entitles the occupants to full ownership rights over such lands so long as utilized by such occupants.