(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioners is directed against the order dated 10. 9. 2004 passed by the Chief Executive Member, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council in GDC-Revenue Appeal No. 8 (Misc.) 1993 refusing to interfere with the order dated 5. 10. 93 passed by the Executive Member in-charge Revenue of the same District Council in GDC/rev No. 88/a/c of 1989-90.
(2.) BEREFT of unnecessary details, the facts material for disposal of the writ petition are that the late Mongnal Sangma, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners was said to have purchased the Damalgre Akhing for a sum of Rs. 60/- only from (L) Badu Marak of Chinabatgre on 3. 12. 1926, whereafter the Nokmaship of Damalgre Akhing passed on to him and that on the death of the late Mongnal Sangma, the Nokmaship of the Akhing passed on to Shri Injang Sangma and his wife Jongme Marak which again passed on to Shri Theman Sangma and his wife Smti Jangme Marak. It is pleaded by the petitioners that on 11. 4. 1990, the Nokmaship of the Akhing was again handed over to Smti. Sade Marak and Chengnang Sangma, who belong to Chambugong Wanang clan and who are the successor Nokma of the said Damalgre village, filed an application to the Executive Member in-charge Revenue GHADC on 30. 4. 90 praying for the appointment of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in place of (L) Mongnal Sangma and (L) Sorjomoni Marak, which was promptly objected by the petitioners. On the basis of this petition, the dispute was taken up by the Executive Member, who framed as many as five issues and thereafter allowed the application for appointment of the respondent No. 5 and 6 as Nokma of Damalgre Akhing again vide the order dated 5. 10. 93 in connection with GDC Rev. No. 88 A/c of 1989-90. The Executive Member allowed the application on the basis of his finding that the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are the rightful successor of the Nokmaship of (L) Mohen Sangma and his wife (L) Sorjomoni Marak. In reaching the aforesaid finding, the Executive Member relied on the order dated 15. 2. 49 passed by the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Garo Hills District Counsel, Tura, in which there was no mention that the appointment of (L) Mohen Sangma and his wife (L) Sorjomoni Marak as Nokma of Damalgre Akhing was a temporary appointment. The Executive Member held that the appointment of the late Mohen Sangma and his wife (L) Sorjomoni Marak as Nokma of Damalgre Akhing was permanent, final and conclusive one and rejected the contentions of the petitioners to the contrary. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners approached the Chief Executive Member of the District Council by way of an appeal, which was registered as Revenue Appeal No. 8 (Misc.) of 1993. When the Chief Executive Member expressed his inability to hear the Appeal, the parties approached this Court for appropriate order. This Court vide order dated 2. 5. 2001 in Civil Rule No. 71 (SH) of 97 directed the Chief Executive Member to dispose of the Appeal pending before him according to law. Thereafter, the Chief Executive Member heard the parties and disposed of the appeal by his order dated 10. 9. 2004 by confirming the order dated 5. 10. 1993 passed by the Executive Member. It may be noted that in the said appeal, the petitioners also filed supplementary memo of appeal on 26. 11. 93 and suggested therein as many as six additional issues to be framed and decided by the Chief Executive Member while disposing of the appeal. It is against the order dismissing the appeal, which is under challenge in this writ petition.
(3.) NO counter affidavit is filed by the respondents, but they contested the writ petition through Mr. K. S. Kynjing, the learned senior counsel, by making oral submissions on the basis of the materials available on record.