GELLONG SANGMA Vs. GARO HILL AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE application is issuing an interim order suspending the operation of the order dated 22-7-2011 issued by the Executive Member I/c Revenue, Garo Hills District Council (respondent 3) removing the names of the applicants the Genealogical Tree (GT) relating to Mangsang ?A?khing and for allowing them to continue as the Nokma of the Mangsang Akhing during the pendency of the writ petition.

(2.) NO written objection has been filed by the District Council. The facts material for disposal of the application may be briefly noticed at the outset. It is the case of the applicants that the Akhing land called Mangsang belongs to ?Rangme Marak? clan to which they belong; that this Akhing was subsequently converted into an Akhing of NOngura clan contrary to the customary law. This had prompted the predecessors-in-interest of the applicants to file an application before the respondent NO. 3 for correction of the related Akhing records (GT) in the names of Smt. Malse Marak Rangme and Shri Salda Sangma Nengminja as the NOkma of the Mangsang Akhing, which was registered as GDC Revenue Case NO. 41 A/C of 1979-80, but the same was dismissed on 9-5-1983.The matter was then taken to appeal before the respondent NO. 2, who set aside the impugned order and declared the said Malse Marak Rangme and Salda Sangma Nengminja as the rightful NOkmas of the Akhing. The respondent NO. 4 and 5 then challenged the order before this Court in Civil Rule NO. 33 of 1984, and this Court by the order dated 16-6-1988 remanded the case to the respondent NO. 2 with a direction to confine his inquiry to the question as to which clan the Akhing belonged. The respondent NO. 2 after hearing the case passed the order dated 8-12-2003 (which was actually pronounced on 18-3-2004) holding that the Akhing belonged to Rangme clanand not to the NOngura clan whereupon the applicants were allowed to continue to discharge their duties as the NOkma. The respondent NO. 4 and 5 then filed WP(C) NO. 112 (SH) of 2004 before this Court, which by the order dated 11-7-2006 set aside the order dated 8-12-2003 and remanded the case to the respondent NO. 2 for fresh consideration in accordance with law. In the meantime, the applicants continued to function as the NOkma. The writ appeal being WA NO. 2(SH) of 2007 against this order filed by the respondent NO. 4 and 5 was, however, dismissed on 18-2-2010 in default of prosecution, and the application filed by the applicants for restoration of the appeal is said to be pending till now. In the meantime, one Salindro N. Sangma of NOngura clan filed an application before the respondent NO. 3 on 15-3-2011 for appointing the respondent NO. 4 and 5 to be the NOkma. The respondent NO. 3 thereafter passed the impugned order appointing the respondent NO. 4 and 5 as the NOkma by deleting the names of the applicants from the relevant GT. This is how the writ petition was filed by the applicants along with this Misc. Case.

(3.) FOR what has been stated in the foregoing, this application is allowed. The operation of the order dated 22-7-2011 passed by the respondent No. 3 GHADC-REV No. 167 A.C. of 2011 (Annexure-7) is hereby stayed during the pendency of the connected writ petition. Resultantly, the respondent No. 3 shall reinstate the applicants as the Nokma of the Mangsang Akhing after deleting the names of the private respondents therefrom within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of this order. Since this order is passed ex-parte against the private respondents, liberty is, however, granted to them to apply for modification or cancellation thereof. Nothing stated in the foregoing shall, however, be construed as final observations on the merit of the case, which is yet to be heard. It is made clear that this order will not stand in the way of the respondent No. 2 to decide the case remanded to him on merit after hearing both the parties till the order of this Court dated 11-7-2006 in WP(C) No. 112(SH) of 2004 is set aside or stayed by the Division Bench of this Court. No cost.