Case: The District Council; United Khasi-Jaintia Hills, Shillon Vs. Ka Drepsila Lyngdoh Of Syllai-U-Lor, Mylliem, Myllie

2. The question arises in this way. The first respondent in each of these appeals had a shop in Bara Bazar, which is a well-known market area, and both these shops were destroyed by fire. In December 1964 the Siem of Mylliem permitted Ka Tiewmon Kharkongar, the first respondent in Civil Appeal No. 1476 of 1969, to construct on the old site a shop similar to the one she had which was gutted by fire. A similar permission was given in May 1965 to Ka Dregpaila Lyngdoh the first respondent in Civil Appea1 No. 1475 of 1969. On July 19, 1965, however, the Siem of Mylliem by a written order asked respondent Ka Tiewmon Kharkongar not to proceed with the construction of the shop; it was stated in the order that the Executive Committee of the District Council, United Khasi-Jaintia Hills, had directed that no new construction, reconstruction or renovation of stalls should be undertaken in Bara Bazar unless approved by the Executive Committee and that all constructions in progress should be stayed. Respondent Ka Drapsila Lyngdoh also received a similar communication from the Siem of Mylliem on May 16, 1966. Both these respondents filed writ petitions in the Assam and Nagaland High Court questioning the authority of the Executive Committee of the District Council to make any order in respect of the Bara Bazar area which they contended was outside the District Councils jurisdiction. The High Court disposed of the two writ petitions by a common Judgment. The High Court found that the District Council had no jurisdiction, administrative or otherwise, over the area in question, and quashed the orders by which the respondents were prohibited from constructing their shops in that area. From the decision of the High Court, the District Council, United Khasi-Jaintia Hills, Shillong, and its Executive Committee have preferred the instant appeals.

Reasoning:
There could be also no disputes in view of paragraph 6 of the Schedule, as to the power of the District Council to manage the Bara Bazar Market and to issue for that purpose the orders impugned in these two cases. if the provisions of the Sixth Schedule to which we have so far referred were the only relevant provisions for consideration.It would appear from this notification that what was ceded to the British Government was only "the jurisdiction necessary for the municipal administration in accordance with the Assam Municipal Act, 1923" of certain villages including Mawkhar and the Governor General in Council was pleased to issue an order extending to the said villages the provisions of the Assam Municipal Act, 1923 subject to certain exceptions. The order also provided that for the purposes of the application of the said Act, and the notifications orders, schemes, rules, forms and byelaws made for the Shillong Municipality which were also made applicable, these villages were to be deemed as a municipality designated the Shillong (Administered Areas) Municipality.We do not think that the material on which the High Court relied justifies the finding that village Mawkhar which includes Bara Bazar was cart of the Shillong Municipality. The notification dated the 16th January, 1934 makes it clear beyond doubt that the Siem of Mylliem ceded the villages for the specified purpose of municipal administration only. It seems to us also clear that though the provisions of the Assam Municipal Act. 1923 were made applicable to the ceded villages. the villages were-never included within the territorial jurisdiction of the Shillong Municipality. The notification itself directed that these villages were to be deemed as a distinct Municipality designated the Shillong (Administered Areas) Municipality which shows that they were not intended to be merged in the Municipality of Shillong though the officers and authorities exercising powers or discharging duties within the Municipality of Shillong were to exercise similar powers and discharge like duties in the ceded areas according to a direction contained in the notification. Chapter II of the Assam Municipal Act. 1923 which, as it stood at the date of the notification, empowered the provincial government to include within a municipality any local area in the vicinity of the same, was not made applicable to these villages. There is also no evidence that these territories were subsequently merged in the Municipality of Shillong After the commencement of the Constitution of India, as paragraph 19 of the Sixth Schedule provides, the administration of the territories comprised in the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District vested in the Governor until the District Council was constituted in June 1952. It is not clear from the material on record whether the District Council took up the entire burden of administration throughout the territories from the beginning or allowed the existing arrangements to continue at some places for some time. The extract from the Bill and Demand Register of the Shillong Municipality for the year l957-58, referred to in the judgment of this High Court, seems to suggest the second possibility. Even if this were so. it does not mean that Mawkhar or South-East Mawkhar was included in the territorial jurisdiction of the Shillong Municipality. In view of the notification dated the 16th January, 1934 which preserves the distinct entity of the ceded villages and in the absence of any provision effecting a merger of these territories in the Municipality of Shillong, reference in the Khasi Siemships (Application of Laws) Order. 1949 to any part of the Khasi-Jaintia Hills District as "comprised within the Municipality of Shillong" must he read to mean that part of the District in which the officers and the authorities of the Shillong Municipality continued to exercise powers and discharge duties as before. In our opinion the jurisdiction of the District-Council of the Khasi-Jaintia Hills extends to the Bara Bazar areas and as such the impugned orders issued at the instance of the appellants to the first respondent in each of these two appeals restraining them from constructing shops in the aforesaid area are not invalid.