Skip to content


Jata Hadia Vs. Mylliem State and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject;Civil
CourtGuwahati High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 200 (H) of 1951
Judge
ActsAdministration of Justice in Khasi and Jaintia Hills Rules - Rule 36; Constitution of India - Article 227
AppellantJata Hadia
RespondentMylliem State and anr.
Appellant AdvocateB.S. Guha, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS.M. Lahiri, P.K. Lahiri and P.K. Gupta, Advs.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....36 of the rules framed for the administration of justice in the administered areas in khasi and jaintia hills, and filed on behalf of one jata hadia who was refused settlement of land by the siem of mylliem state. the appeal or revision, whatever we may call it, is against the order of the a. d. c., khasi and jaintia hills, dated 25-7-51. after hearing the learned advocate and perusal of the record, it appears to me that this matter is purely one confined to settlement of land, and cannot be said to be a civil dispute. rule 36 of the administration of justice rules for khasi and jaintia hills has no application to revenue matters, nor is the high court entitled, even in its revenue jurisdiction, to exercise any power of superintendence over settlements made by any of the siems in.....
Judgment:

Deka, J.

This is a matter purporting to be one under Rule 36 of the Rules framed for the administration of justice in the administered areas in Khasi and Jaintia Hills, and filed on behalf of one Jata Hadia who was refused settlement of land by the Siem of Mylliem State. The appeal or revision, whatever we may call it, is against the order of the A. D. C., Khasi and Jaintia Hills, dated 25-7-51. After hearing the learned advocate and perusal of the record, it appears to me that this matter is purely one confined to settlement of land, and cannot be said to be a civil dispute. Rule 36 of the Administration of Justice Rules for Khasi and Jaintia Hills has no application to revenue matters, nor is the High Court entitled, even in its revenue jurisdiction, to exercise any power of superintendence over settlements made by any of the Siems in Khasi and Jaintia Hills. In this view of the case, I hold that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this matter, and the petition must, therefore, be dismissed, and is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The Rule is discharged.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //