Smti Thinda Ch. Marak vs . The Garo Hills Autonomous on 6 May, 2025

Meghalaya High Court

Smti Thinda Ch. Marak vs . The Garo Hills Autonomous on 6 May, 2025

Author: H. S. Thangkhiew

Bench: H. S. Thangkhiew

 Serial No. 01
 Supplementary List
                        HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                              AT SHILLONG

WP(C) No. 160 of 2025
                                             Date of Order: 06.05.2025

Smti Thinda Ch. Marak            Vs. The Garo Hills Autonomous
                                     District Council & Ors.

Coram:
               Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge


Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s)       :    Mr. K.C. Gautam, Adv. with
                                 Mr. J.M. Sangma, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)       :    Mr. S. Dey, Adv. with

Ms. E. Dkhar, Adv. (For R 1&3)
Mr. P.T. Sangma, Adv. (For R 4&5)

Heard Mr. K.C. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Issue notice.

Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel is present and accepts notice on behalf
of the respondents Nos. 1 & 3.

Mr. P.T. Sangma, learned counsel who is present in Court submits
that he is entering appearance on behalf of the respondents Nos. 4 & 5.

Let notice be issued to the respondent No. 2, by registered AD
within 3(three) days.

Page 1 of 3

Mr. K.C. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the grievance of the writ petitioner, who is stated to be the Nokma
of Rangthangsora Akhing is that in a matter that has already been decided
by the Executive Member I/C Revenue pursuant to the order of this Court
dated 09.02.2015 passed in WP(C) No. 35 of 2014, the respondent No. 2
is seeking to re-open the matter by re-taking evidence of the parties,
though the case no longer survives for consideration. He therefore, prays
that in the interim, the proceedings be stayed.

Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 & 3,
submits that it is not a case of the respondent No. 2, being the Appellate
authority not having jurisdiction to take evidence, and further contends
that the impugned order only speaks of evidence of the witnesses, if any.
He therefore, submits that there is no cause for interference, at this stage.

Mr. P.T. Sangma, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 4 & 5,
has supported the submission made by Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for
the respondents Nos. 1 & 3, and submits that in fact the petitioner herself
has submitted the list of witnesses. However, he prays that he may
allowed 2(two) weeks’ time to place the same on affidavit.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the
materials as placed. It is seen from the earlier orders passed by this Court
and also the proceedings before the District Council, that the matter had
been examined and adjudicated. The only doubt that remains, is with the
order for re-examination of witnesses, inasmuch as, it has yet to be
ascertained from the records as to whether the issues framed by this Court
had been gone into and definite findings arrived at, when the matter was
taken up at the level of the Executive Member I/C Revenue.

Page 2 of 3

In this view of the matter, at this stage a prima facie case has been
made out for interim orders.

Accordingly, further proceedings in Rev. Appeal No. 22 A.C. of
2022, pending before the Chief Executive Member, GHADC, shall
remained stayed, until the next date.

List this matter on 23.05.2025.

JUDGE

Meghalaya
06.05.2025
“V. Lyndem-PS”

Page 3 of 3