BERNARD N MARAK Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, framed and styled as a Public Interest Litigation ["PIL"], the petitioner seeks to challenge the powers of Garo Hills Autonomous District Council ["GHADC"] to enact any law on transfer of land; and to issue pattas for transfer of land while creating new plain Mauzas. The petitioner, while questioning the validity of the Garo Hills District (Transfer of Land) Act, 1955 ["the Act of 1955"], as made by GHADC, has claimed the following reliefs:-

(2.) While asserting that he is "newly appointed Nokma of Tura town area", the petitioner has alleged that such an appointment vests him with public duty to protect the customary laws and the system. The petitioner has averred that in Garo Hills area in the State of Meghalaya, most of the land is owned by the clan or machong, which is known as A'khing land and the Nokma is the custodian thereof, who could part with the land to any individual or to any entity with the consent of her clan/machong members. According to the petitioner, GHADC has no role in appointment of Nokma and is only the authority to register the said appointment but many a times, GHADC exceeds its jurisdiction as if appointing Nokma and thus, interfers with the prevailing customary practice and laws in Garo Hills. The petitioner has further averred that GHADC is attempting to take away the land of the Garo tribal people through the said Act of 1955 and also by issuance of pattas while creating new Mauzas X, X-1 etc., and thereby depriving the people of their land without acquisition or without any payment to the A'khing Nokma. The petitioner has also averred that, in his capacity as Nokma, he had made several representations/requests to the authorities for cancellation of such Mauzas but without any response.

(3.) The petitioner would maintain that GHADC is not competent to enact the law on transfer of land in terms of Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India and as such, the Act of 1955 is ultra vires, void and illegal as a whole; and more particularly, Sections 3 to 9 thereof are beyond the competence of GHADC in terms of Sixth Schedule and are also violative of the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971, as made by the State Legislature. The petitioner has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of District Council of the United Khasi and Jaintia Hills, Shillong and Ors. v. Miss. Sitimon Sawian, 1972 AIR(SC) 787 with the submissions that the enactment of similar nature, as made by the other District Council, was disapproved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner has also referred to the decision of Gauhati High Court in the case of Shri Tarani Kanta Das v. Karbi Anglong District Council, Diphu,1989 1 GauLR 147 to assert that the land comprised in Autonomous District does not belong to the District Council.