DIMA A. SANGMA AND ORS. Vs. THE GARO HILLS AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Ms. A Kharumnuid and Ms. S.G. Momin, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 -3 and Mr. PT Sangma, learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 & 5.

(2.) IN the present writ petition, after perusal of the respective pleadings of the party, it is clear that there are serious disputed questions of facts, for which examination of oral and documentary evidence are necessary. The writ proceeding is not the proper forum for deciding those serious disputed questions of facts. In this background, this writ petition is taken up for disposal.

(3.) MS . A Kharumnuid, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the petitioner No. 1, who is an illiterate, did not even file any application to any authority for recording the names of the respondents No. 4 & 5 as Nokma of Rangthangsora Akhing land. She also further stated that on further enquiry, it had been learnt that the respondents No. 4 & 5 had fraudulently obtained thumb impression of the petitioner No. 1 on a paper which had been used subsequently by the respondents No. 4 & 5 as an application to the Executive Member, GHADC for recording the names of the respondents No. 4 & 5 as Nokma of Rangthangsora Akhing land. Therefore, this disputed question of fact cannot be decided in the present writ proceeding.