Meghalaya High Court
Shri. President N. Marak vs The Garo Hills Autonomous District on 11 August, 2025
Author: H.S.Thangkhiew
Bench: H.S.Thangkhiew
2025:MLHC:713
Serial No.31
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C). No. 288 of 2023
Date of Decision: 11.08.2025
1. Shri. President N. Marak,
S/o (L) Tilo N. Sangma.
2. Smti. Josenni M. Sangma,
W/o. Shri. President N. Marak.
3. Shri. Chempil M. Sangma,
S/o. Shri. President N. Marak.
...Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The Garo Hills Autonomous District
Council (GHADC) represented by its
Secretary, Executive Committee,
Tura, West Garo Hills District,
Meghalaya.
2. The Chief Executive Member,
Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC),
Tura, West Garo Hills District,
Meghalaya.
3. The Deputy Chief Executive Member,
I/C Land & Revenue,
Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC),
Tura, West Garo Hills District,
Meghalaya.
1
2025:MLHC:713
4. The Executive Member,
I/C Land & Revenue,
Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC),
Tura, West Garo Hills District,
Meghalaya.
5. Shri. Keneth Momin,
Nokma of Dambo A'king,
R/o. Dambo Bima, P.O. & P.S.
Rongjeng, East Garo Hills District,
Meghalaya.
6. Smti. Meronika Sangma,
Nokma of Dambo A'king,
R/o. Dambo Bima, P.O. & P.S.
Rongjeng, East Garo Hills District,
Meghalaya.
...Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.S.Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Applicant(s) : Mr. A.G.Moni, Adv.
Ms. L.D.Sangma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S.Dey, SC for R1-4.
Mr. V.K.Jindal, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. I.Kharmujai, Adv.
Ms. T.Pohlong, Adv. for R 5 & 6.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
2
2025:MLHC:713
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is before this Court impuning the judgment and order
dated 27-02-2020, passed by the respondent No. 4, and the order on appeal
therefrom dated 24-05-2023, passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby his
prayer for recognition of a separate Aking has been rejected on the ground
of res judicata. The case is founded on the claim that under a certain A’king
known as Dambo A’king, namely, Wathesa A’mate A’king and Milgiri
A’mate A’king, though in existence, were not registered and as such,
remained under Dambo A’king, and in 1927, the then Deputy Commissioner,
Shri. G.D.Walker, by an order dated 15-01-1927 had approved the
demarcation as has been carried out at that point of time, without taking this
fact into consideration.
2. Mr. A.G.Momin, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
notwithstanding the fact that the orders of the former Deputy Commissioner,
dated 1927 existed, the aspect of the existence of the Milgiri A’king within
Dambo A’king was never adjudicated fully, and to buttress his arguments,
has referred to an order dated 23-06-2006, passed by the respondent No. 4,
where in the case of Dambo Wathesa A’king , the same has been recognised
and has been entered in the records from 21-07-2006. He further submits
3
2025:MLHC:713
that though the same was appealed against, the same was dismissed and as
on today, the Amathe Dambo Wathesa A’king exists. He therefore, prays
that the petitioners claim being identical to the Wathesa clan, they be given
consideration. It is further submitted that the orders which have been
assailed before this Court are bad in law, inasmuch as, the principles as laid
down in the case of Dore Sangma has not been followed, inasmuch, no
issues either preliminary or otherwise, were framed before dismissing the
petitioners petition on the ground of res judicata.
3. Mr. V.K.Jindal, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. I.Kharmujai,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 5 & 6, has at the outset
submitted that the matter at hand which is sought to be revived by the
petitioners has been decided over 90 years ago, and in this connection, has
taken this Court to the order dated 15-01-1927 which has been approved by
the then Deputy Commissioner, Shri. G.D.Walker. Learned Sr. counsel has
also submitted that at that point itself, the boundaries were settled and the
finding has been rendered that the Predecessor-in-Interest of the writ
petitioners do not possess any Amathe land. An appeal, he submits, was also
preferred before the Commissioner who came thereafter, namely, one Shri.
J.N.David, who, by an order dated 24-08-1929, rejected the same and a
finding was rendered therein at para 5 of the order dated 24-08-1929.
Learned Sr. counsel, therefore, submits that the point in question does not
4
2025:MLHC:713
deserve anymore consideration, and the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.
4. Mr. S.Dey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1-4, has
endorsed the submissions made by the learned Sr. counsel for the
respondents No. 5 & 6, and further submitted that after the orders had been
rendered by the Deputy Commissioner in 1927, and thereafter on 1929, there
has been no challenge to the same and it is too late in the day to seek any
review or recall of the same.
5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining of the
materials on record, the undisputed fact is that the earlier Deputy
Commissioner by his order of approval dated 15-01-1927, had recorded in
the order, a part of which is extracted hereinbelow as follows:
“In the court of Deputy Commissioner,Garo Hills.
IV-58(5) DAMBO,
No. 180
1926-27
…In conclusion, I would also like to inform
you that, in the reports I have given to you on dt.
29-9-29, 1. DORON MOMIN of Wathesa Clan 2.
DINGKHAL MOMIN of Rangsa Milgri Clan 3.
HOJING MOMIN of MECHENGPHA-AKHONG
Clan 4. TAOKHET MOMIN of Dagu Dalbot Clan,
even on having the information of me coming to
DAMBO village to demarcate the boundaries by
erecting the dhips for SINGRENG NOKMA, were
not found in the village and also were not there5
2025:MLHC:713while erecting the dhips instead they all hid
themselves in other village. As they were hiding
themselves and unconcern/careless to erect a dhip
in the boundaries, it is learned that they do not
possessed AMATHE land (a stretch of land within
the A.king land, which belongs to none). Herewith,
Elaka No. IV-58(5) DAMBO-APHAL, WATHESA,
BIMAGITTIM (MILGRIGITHIM)
CHAREGITHIM, SINGRENG NOKMA of the
Akhing Nokma of Mechengpha Clan of the
following villages, do hereby, in accordance the
records by elders of the Clan, is annexing the
records of the boundaries and a map.”
Further, as correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the
respondents, the matter was taken on appeal and however, stood dismissed.
A perusal of the records also shows that a map which has been rendered with
regard to the boundaries has also been registered and endorsed by the
Deputy Commissioner at that point of time.
6. This Court, therefore to examine as to whether any dispute still
remains that can be made subject of any further adjudication, has noted that
as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in 2006, an order has
been passed by the Executive Member respondent No. 3, with regard to the
claim of Wathesa clan. A perusal of the same shows that the same was
viewed from a different perspective and the appeal preferred therefrom was
dismissed on the ground of limitation. This Court, however, will not pass
any observations or comments on the legality of the said order which seems
6
2025:MLHC:713
to have been rendered without considering the actual circumstances.
Coming to the instant matter at hand, though it has been argued by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that the principles as enunciated in Dore
Sangma has not been followed, a perusal of the said judgment itself which
has been reported in (1988) 2 GLR 120, at para 23 reads as follows:
“23. Because of what has been stated above, we
are of the firm view that principle of res judicata
which is founded on equity, justice and good
conscience has to apply to proceedings before the
Revenue Member also. Deputy Commissioner,
Mr. W.Shaw, having held as early as 4.1.37 (that
is, more than five decades before) that the
petitioner Dore Sangma was Nokma being
Khangee’s own daughter, it is too late in the day
to disturb that finding. May we state that the
dispute in the present case is between the
petitioners who are claiming through Khangee
and the opposite parties claiming through
Dingma who was the first wife of Goban Marak
whereas Khangee is the second wife of Goban. It
may be that the appellate order of the Chief
Executive Member is founded on good reasons but
then that is not enough by itself to undo the order
passed by then Deputy Commissioner Mr. Shaw
on the selfsame matter on 4.1.37. Principle of res
judicata would not allow us to reopen the
controversy relating to Nokmaship after the death
of Goban Marak.”
7. As such, it can be clearly seen that the situation being similar as
discussed in paragragh 23 quoted above, the principle of res judicata will
squarely apply to the instant case.
7
2025:MLHC:713
8. In conclusion, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case,
especially the long time that has elapsed in seeking to revive or re-adjudicate
the claim, the matter deserves no further consideration, the impugned orders
are upheld and the writ petition accordingly stands dismissed.
Judge
Signature Not Verified 8
Digitally signed by
SAMANTHA ANNA LIYA
RYNJAH
Date: 2025.08.11 05:30:15 IST