CHANNING SANGMA Vs. SINGSAN SANGMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition of revision filed under Rule 35 of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Garo Hills District. The petitioner is one Changing Sangma and he moves this Court against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Garo Hills passed in Revenue Appeal No.7 of 1951 -52, dated 29 -3 -52.

(2.) THE case for the petitioner is that he was illegally removed from the Nokmaship of Menonggiri Akhing which was shared with his wife Ronggat who is now dead. The opposite party Singsan Sangma filed a petition before the Extra Assistant Commissioner at Tura on 31 -8 -50 that in view of the fact that Channing was not looking after his wife Ronggat who was ill, the petitioner and the Maharis or clansmen had released Channing from Akhym (that is the obligation to take a second wife to be provided by the clansmen) and the Maharis did not want him to continue as Nokma. The case had a chequered career and I need not refer to the interim stages. Mt. Ronggat was in the meantime dead and Channing married another wife who he says was from the same clan as Ronggat. The case of the opposite -party was that Channing had already been released from Akhym and he had no right to continue as a Nokma. The learned Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner passed an order on 7 -11 -1950 in favour of Singsan & his wife Simijing declaring them to be Nokmas. But that order was set aside in Revenue Appeal No. 13/1950 -51 by the Deputy Commissioner as it was an 'ex parte' order and he remanded the case to the trial court. The learned Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner on remand referred the matter to a Panchayat as provided under Rule 31 of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Garo Hills District. After repeated extension of time for filing of the decision of the panchayat, - -on 8 -5 -51, three of the members constituting the panchayat submitted a report declaring Channing and his new wife Machani to be eligible to be Nokmas, and the fourth member filed a dissentient note and the umpire was absent. On the receipt of the report from the arbitrators the E. A. C. asked the umpire to appear before him and state what happened and the umpire on 29 -5 -51 stated that no final decision was arrived at in the meeting of the panchayat held in February, as alleged in the report filed by some of the members of the panchayat.

(3.) RULE 32 of the Garo Hills Administration Rules provides that an appeal would lie from the decision of the lasker or other duly recognised village authorities to the Deputy Commissioner or his Assistants duly authorised and if the appellate Court sees reasons to doubt the justice of the decision, it was competent to try the case 'de novo' or refer it to the panchayat as above. Rule 35 provides that an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner would lie against the decision of any of his Assistants provided that the appeal is filed within the period prescribed. The powers of the Court of appeal are nowhere specifically prescribed but the administration of civil justice in the Garo Hills is entrusted to the Deputy Commissioner and as such he has every right to pass any reasonable order which as an appellate Court he could do, keeping before him the, spirit of the Civil Procedure Code. Here the power that could be exercised under R. 32 could undoubtedly be exercised under R. 35 as well which speaks of the revisional power of the Deputy Commissioner as well his appellate jurisdiction.