Serial No. 29
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 398 of 2022 Date of Decision: 31.01.2024
Shri. Khrin Kharbani Vs. Khasi Hills Autonomous District
Council & 4 Ors.
Coram:
Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Chief Justice (Acting)
Hon’ble
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Wahlang, Adv.
Mr. F.N. Ropmay, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. V.G.K.Kynta, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. C. Nongkhlaw, Adv.(For R 1-3)
Mr. L. Syiem, Adv. (For R 4)
Mr. P. Yobin, Adv. (For R 5).
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner who is stated to be the Sordar of Laitnongrim
village, Nongspung Syiemship is aggrieved with the impugned order
1
dated 12.07.2022, passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby approval
has been granted for creation of Spar Mawsyntiew as a village,
bifurcated from the parent village namely Lainongrim. In the petition, it
has been alleged that the impugned order has been passed in violation
of The Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Elaka) Act,
1991, inasmuch as, there was no clear consensus or approval given by
the Dorbar of Laitnongrim village for creation of Spar Mawsyntiew as
a separate village.
2. Mr. S. Wahlang, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner in
his submissions has taken this Court to the impugned order to show that
there was no consensus, and in fact that, there was a dilemma among
the villagers who were divided in their opinion as to whether consent
should be given for creation of Spar Mawsyntiew as a separate village.
Learned counsel has also relied on a report dated 02.06.2022, with
regard to the proceedings of the Dorbar Laitnongrim village held on
28.05.2022, to press his case that there was no such approval and the
impugned order being passed in total disregard to the provisions
contained in the Act, is therefore bad in law and is liable to be set aside.
3. Mr. V.G.K.Kynta, learned Special counsel on behalf of the
respondents No. 1-3 in his usual fairness has submitted that if the
situation is as portrayed by the petitioner, perhaps the respondent No. 2
2
can have a relook at the creation of Spar Mawsyntiew as a separate
village after due process is followed.
4. Mr. P. Yobin, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No. 5 submits that though the Spar Mawsyntiew has been functioning
as a separate village since the date of the impugned order, they are yet
to be provided with the facilities such as the Fair Price Shops and other
development schemes, and the villagers are suffering at this stage. It
has further been submitted by the learned counsel that the separation
was necessary, in view of the prevalent ground situation, wherein the
villagers residing in Spar Mawsyntiew locality had been deprived of
civic amenities by the parent village, under the leadership of the
petitioner.
5. Mr. L. Syiem, learned counsel who is present on behalf of the
respondent No. 4, submits that as the dispute is between the two
villages, he has no submissions to make at this stage.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, and examined the
materials on record. Putting the case into perspective, a perusal of the
impugned order reflects that there has been no clear consensus, with
regard to the permission for creation of Spar Mawsyntiew as a separate
village. The findings as recorded in the impugned order which are
relevant for the purposes of this case are reproduced herein below:
3
There are 61 households in Spar Mawsyntiew locality
“(1)
and majority of the villagers under this locality have desired
to have its own village authority and this desire of the
majority of the residents in Spar Mawsyntiew locality was
found in the inspection/enquiry by the representatives of the
Executive Dorbar of Hima Nongspung and also it is evident
from the General Dorbar of Laitnongrim village.
(2) The Dorbar Shnong of Laitnongrim held on 28.5.2022
clearly indicated that there is a dilemma among the villagers
in Laitnongrim as to whether consent should be granted or
not for the bifurcation of Spar Mawsyntiew locality into a
full fledged village. From the report is appears that decision
was never taken in this Dorbar and it seems like the villagers
who attended the Dorbar was divided into half as whether
consent should be given or not for creation/bifurcation of
new village i.e. Spar Mawsyntiew village. Such is the case
opinion and consent of the parent village is not materialized
as there is dilemma among the villagers. Moreover, it
appears that there is a deadlock relation between the
residents settled in Spar Mawsyntiew locality and the other
residents in other locality of Laitnongrim village. So also it
appears that Laitnongrim village has neglected the welfare
of the villagers settle in Spar Mawsyntiew and if village
authority is not given to the Spar Mawsyntiew locality it
appears that there will be a total failure in the village
administration as a whole. Hence the Executive Committee
is deem fit to consider the opinion of the Executive Dorbar
4
of Hima Nongspung to approve the creation/bifurcation of
Spar Mawsyntiew village.
(3) The residents of Spar Mawsyntiew locality are desired to
have its own village authority for the general welfare of the
villagers, for the development in the locality and for
eradication of social evil activities in the village. So also it
appears that they are able to run the day today
administration of the village.
(4)The Dorbar Shnong Laitnongrim village has already
given a proper definite boundary to the Spar Mawsyntiew
locality when they appoint the head of the locality (Rangbah
Dong) and when the Dorbar Shnong of Laitnongrim granted
Spar Mawsyntiew a locality and administration, hence it is
clear that Spar Mawsyntiew locality has a proper boundary
if the same is bifurcated into a full fledged village.
(5) The grounds raised by the Sordar and Secretary of
Laitnongrim village in the report that village authority
cannot be granted to Spar Mawsyntiew since there is only
one Village Employment Council and one Fair Price shop in
Laitnongrim village which still include Spar Mawsyntiew
locality is not admissible as it is a well settled legal principle
that once a village authority is approved by the Executive
Committee that village will have its own Village Employment
Council and its own Fair Price shop to be established and
constituted by the competent authority.”
5
7. A further perusal of the enquiry report also depicts the same
picture i.e. the absence of a decision of consensus by the Dorbar of
Laitnongrim village, which was held on 28.05.2022.
8. In this backdrop, therefore the impugned order having been
passed without taking into consideration Section 3 of the Act of 1991,
and also in the absence of any other material in support thereof does not
survive for further scrutiny. However, in view of the fact that, Spar
Mawsyntiew village has been existing as a separate village since
passing of the impugned order and to avoid any dislocation or
disturbance in these villages, for the ends of justice, it is provided as
follows:
(1) The respondent No. 4, Syiem of Hima Nongspung shall call for
and convene a Dorbar of the residents of Laitnongrim and Spar
Mawsyntiew village within a period of 2(two) months from
today, to decide on the issue as to whether Spar Mawsyntiew
shall continue to exist as a separate village.
(2) The views and opinions expressed therein, and the decision
arrived at shall be recorded by the Chief and the Dorbar in the
form of a report, and the same shall thereafter within a period of
2(two) weeks, after the said Dorbar, be submitted to the
6
respondent No. 2, Executive Committee, Khasi Hills
Autonomous District Council, Shillong to seek its approval or
any further decision thereon.
9. The above noted directions have been passed considering the
nature of the case, and the fact that the residents of these two villages as
they are existing presently should not be disturbed or any harm caused
to their co-existence. Lastly, until final orders are passed by the
respondent No. 2, status quo as on today shall be maintained by both
the villages, as also to the services and schemes which are to be availed
by all the residents of these areas.
10. It is expected on receipt of report the respondent No. 2, shall
passed orders thereon expeditiously.
11. With the above noted directions, this writ petition stands
closed and disposed of.
Chief Justice (Acting)
Meghalaya
31.01.2024
“D.Thabah-PS”
7