# [1975] 3 S.C.R. 601

- **Citation:** [1975] 3 S.C.R. 601
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1975
- **Bench:** K. K. Mhhew, v. R. KRISHNA IYER A!\D A. c. GUPTA
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1975-3-s-c-r-601-6455
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Co11stir111ion of India, 1950, Schedule VJ, Paras 6 and 20 Scope- of-Whether
l'illai;<' of Mall'kher is included within tile Sl1i/lo11g Municipality.
Th~ Exccu111·c Com111i11ce of the District Council, United Khasi·Jaintia Hills
dir~cted thut no new construcllon or re-constr.u'ction of stalls should be under·
taken in Burn Bnznr. The respondents, who were. thus p1·ohibitcd from construe·
ting their shops !\led the writ petitions in the High Court chnllenglng the direc:Uon.
Schedule VI of th~ Constitution shciws thnt tho United Khusi Jalntia Hills
District is a tribal area within the State of Megbalaya, The territories rom·
priseu·:·wi1hin this district include Bara Bazar area, In view of.para 6 o{
the
Scbetlule which enumerates ·the powers of the District Council,
the
District.
Col,ltlcil ha~ power to manage the Bara Bazar market and issue the impugned
ord.ers.
But oara 20 of the Schedule states that if any part of the area com·
prise.<.! in tile district were included i~ the municipality of Shillong, before the
district came into being the powers conferred on the District Council by para 6
of the Schedule would not be available to the Council in respect of that area.
The High Court found that the village of Mawkher
which
comprises
Bara
Baza'". wns .a pmt of the muni:ipality of the Shillong on the basis of ( 1) a
.. 1Jo!iflc.i-tion d'c1ted hnuary 16. 1934. (2) <:n extrnq from •he Demand and Bill
'Re~ist·~r of the '.Shillong Municipality for the year 1957-58 and (3) the Khasi
Siemship.1 (1\pplication of Law.,) Order. 1949, a·nd held that the District Council
had no jtfrisdiction. adminis1rative or otherwise over Bara Bazar and quashed tl1e
Impugned orders.
Allowing the appeal to this Court,
HELD : (I) The 1934 notification show> that what was ceded by the Siem
of l\1vlli"m when he ceded Mawkher and other villages to the British Government
was
only
the
jurisdiction
necessary
for
the
municipal
admi:1:st1 :1tion in nccordance with the Assam Municipal Act. 1923.
and
the
Governor General in Council issued an order extending the 1923 Municipal Act
to those Yill:igcs. The Order orovided that the villages were to be deemed as a
municipality designated the Shillong (Administered Areas) Municipality.
Thus
the villages were ceded for the specified purpose of municipal
administration
only and though the provisions ot the Municipal Act were made applicable to
the ceded villages they were never included within the territorial jurisdiction of
the Shillong municipality, but were deemed to he a distinct municipality-the
Shillong (Administered Areas) Municipality. This shows that
the
villages
were not intended to b' merged in the Shillong Municipaliiy though the officers
of the municinalitv were to exercise similar powers and discharge like duties in
the cecl:-d ar:o,,.:, Chapter II of the Municipal Act which empowered the provincial g<wernmcnt to include within a municinality any local area in its vicinity
was not· made :1:irlicable to the villages. There. is also no evidence that these
territor'c; were •.uhs~~uenlly merged in th,· Mu.nieirality of Shillong.
[6D5F·
60(1","\
(2) Th·' Demanc.1 and Bill Register of the Shillong municipality refers
to
Souih F,r;r Mawkher as a warJ of the Shillong Municipality.
But it does not
mean :hnt Mawkher or South East Mawkher was mcluded in
the
territorial
juris,!'c'.icn of the 1\fHnici!lalitv. It onlv means that the District Council. instead
of takin.g ur the administratior, allowed existing arrangements to continue
in
some places for some time.
[6%B-C]
8-470 Sup. Cf/75
f)Q2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 3 S.C:.R.
(3) The Khasi Siem.ships (Application of Laws) Order,
1949
refen1
to
.. Shillong Admini.stered Areas" by which is meant 'so much of the areas foir the
time being comprised within the municipality· of Shillong' as forms part of the
United Khasi Jaintia Hills District. and the lirst Schedule to the Order ddines
the "Shillong Administered Areas" as comprising the areas
covered
by
the
Shillong (Adminis

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
(
'>
.I
H
601
THE DISTRICT COUNCIL, UNITED KHASI-JAINTIA HILLS,
SHILLO~G AND ANR.
I'.
KA DREPSJLA LYNGDOH OF
SVLLAI-U-LOR,
MYLLIEM,
MYLLIEM SIEMSHIP, UNITED KHASI-JA1NTJA HILLS AND
ORS.
February 2\' 1975
[K. K. MHHEW, v. R. KRISHNA IYER A!\D A. c. GUPTA, JJ.]
Co11stir111ion of India, 1950, Schedule VJ, Paras 6 and 20 Scope- of-Whether
l'illai;<' of Mall'kher is included within tile Sl1i/lo11g Municipality.
Th~ Exccu111·c Com111i11ce of the District Council, United Khasi·Jaintia Hills
dir~cted thut no new construcllon or re-constr.u'ction of stalls should be under·
taken in Burn Bnznr. The respondents, who were. thus p1·ohibitcd from construe·
ting their shops !\led the writ petitions in the High Court chnllenglng the direc:Uon.
Schedule VI of th~ Constitution shciws thnt tho United Khusi Jalntia Hills
District is a tribal area within the State of Megbalaya, The territories rom·
priseu·:·wi1hin this district include Bara Bazar area, In view of.para 6 o{
the
Scbetlule which enumerates ·the powers of the District Council,
the
District.
Col,ltlcil ha~ power to manage the Bara Bazar market and issue the impugned
ord.ers.
But oara 20 of the Schedule states that if any part of the area com·
prise.<.! in tile district were included i~ the municipality of Shillong, before the
district came into being the powers conferred on the District Council by para 6
of the Schedule would not be available to the Council in respect of that area.
The High Court found that the village of Mawkher
which
comprises
Bara
Baza'". wns .a pmt of the muni:ipality of the Shillong on the basis of ( 1) a
.. 1Jo!iflc.i-tion d'c1ted hnuary 16. 1934. (2) <:n extrnq from •he Demand and Bill
'Re~ist·~r of the '.Shillong Municipality for the year 1957-58 and (3) the Khasi
Siemship.1 (1\pplication of Law.,) Order. 1949, a·nd held that the District Council
had no jtfrisdiction. adminis1rative or otherwise over Bara Bazar and quashed tl1e
Impugned orders.
Allowing the appeal to this Court,
HELD : (I) The 1934 notification show> that what was ceded by the Siem
of l\1vlli"m when he ceded Mawkher and other villages to the British Government
was
only
the
jurisdiction
necessary
for
the
municipal
admi:1:st1 :1tion in nccordance with the Assam Municipal Act. 1923.
and
the
Governor General in Council issued an order extending the 1923 Municipal Act
to those Yill:igcs. The Order orovided that the villages were to be deemed as a
municipality designated the Shillong (Administered Areas) Municipality.
Thus
the villages were ceded for the specified purpose of municipal
administration
only and though the provisions ot the Municipal Act were made applicable to
the ceded villages they were never included within the territorial jurisdiction of
the Shillong municipality, but were deemed to he a distinct municipality-the
Shillong (Administered Areas) Municipality. This shows that
the
villages
were not intended to b' merged in the Shillong Municipaliiy though the officers
of the municinalitv were to exercise similar powers and discharge like duties in
the cecl:-d ar:o,,.:, Chapter II of the Municipal Act which empowered the provincial g<wernmcnt to include within a municinality any local area in its vicinity
was not· made :1:irlicable to the villages. There. is also no evidence that these
territor'c; were •.uhs~~uenlly merged in th,· Mu.nieirality of Shillong.
[6D5F·
60(1","\
(2) Th·' Demanc.1 and Bill Register of the Shillong municipality refers
to
Souih F,r;r Mawkher as a warJ of the Shillong Municipality.
But it does not
mean :hnt Mawkher or South East Mawkher was mcluded in
the
territorial
juris,!'c'.icn of the 1\fHnici!lalitv. It onlv means that the District Council. instead
of takin.g ur the administratior, allowed existing arrangements to continue
in
some places for some time.
[6%B-C]
8-470 Sup. Cf/75
f)Q2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 3 S.C:.R.
(3) The Khasi Siem.ships (Application of Laws) Order,
1949
refen1
to
.. Shillong Admini.stered Areas" by which is meant 'so much of the areas foir the
time being comprised within the municipality· of Shillong' as forms part of the
United Khasi Jaintia Hills District. and the lirst Schedule to the Order ddines
the "Shillong Administered Areas" as comprising the areas
covered
by
the
Shillong (Administered Areas) Municipality ·which
includes
Mawkher. llut,
in view of the notification dated January" 16, 1934, and the absence of any provision effecting merger with the Shillong Municipality the expression 'comprised
within the munidpahty of Shillong,' can only mean that part of the district in
whkh :he officers of the Shillong municipality ,;ontinued to exercise powers and
discharge duties as before. [606C-EJ
Civ11 APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1475 & 1476
of 't 969.
From the judgment and order dated the 4th Decemb2r, 1967 of
A
B
the ~sam & Nagaland High Court in Civil Rule Nos. 264 and 328 of c
1966.
D. N. Mukheriee, for the appellant. ·
.i. K. Sen 1md S. K. Nandy, for Respondent No. I.
G, S. Chatterjee, for Respondent No. 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GUPTA, J. The only question arising for decision m these two
appeals, brought on certificates granted by the- Assam and Nagalnnd
High Court, is whether the jurisdiction of the. District Council of the
United K.hasi-Jaintia Hills, e.xtends to the area called .B\ll'a Bazar in
village Mawkhar in Shillong.
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 riespondlent in Civil Appeal No,. 1476 of 1969, to com;truct on the
c~d
site a shop similar to . the one she had which was gutted by fire.
A
similar permission was given in May 1965 to Ka Drepsile Lyngdob,
the first respondent in Civil Appeal No. 1475 of 1969. On July 19,
1965, however, the Siem of Mylliem by a written order asked respm1dent Ka Tiewmon K.harkongar not to proceed with the constructiion
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 ru~w construct.ion, 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. Respond4:nt Ka Drepsila 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 autho1rity of the Executive Committee of the District Cow1-
, cil to make any <>rder in respect of the Bara Bazar area which
thf~Y
contended was outside the District . Council's jurisdiction. The High
COurt disposed of' the two writ petitions by a common Judgment. TI1e
High, Court found that the District Council had no jurisdiction, admi-
. nistra1ive ·or otherwise, over the area in question, and quashed the
D
E
p
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
.f'
H
KHASI JAINTIA HILLS v. K. A· DREPSILA (Gupta, !.)
603
orders by which the respondents were prohibited from con$tructing
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.
The United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District is a tribal arra within the
State of Meghalaya as will appear from Part II, item I of the Table
appended to paragraph 20 of the Sixth Schedu!e of the Constitution.
Article 244(2) of the Constitution lays down that the provisions . of
the Sixth Schedule shall apply to the administration of these tribal
areas.
Paragraph 1 of the Sixth Schedule provides inter alia that the
tribal areas in each item of Parts I and Il and in Part III of the Table
appended to paragraph 20 of this Schedule .shall be · ari'. autonomous
district. It is provided in paragraph 2 of the Schedule that each autonomous district shall have a District Council which would be a body
corporate, vested with the power to administer the District. Paragraph
6 of the Schedule which enumerates some of the powers of the District
Council states inter alia that the District Council for an autonomous ,
district may establish, construct, or manage primary schools, dispensa·
ries, markets, cattle pounds, ferries, fisheries, roads, road transport
and water-ways in the district. There is no dispute that the territories
comprised within the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District include the
Bara Bazar area.
There could be also no dispute, 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.
However, paragraph 20 of the Schedule has a proviso
which states that : "for the purposes of clauses (e) and (0 of subparagraph (1) of paragraph 3, paragraph 4, ·paragraph 5, paragraph
6, sub-paragraph (2), clauses (a), (b) and (d) of sub-paragraph 3 and
sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 8 and clause (d) of sub-paragraph
(2) of paragraph 1.0 of this Schedule, no part of the area comprised
within the municipality of Shillong shall be deemed to be within the
United Khasi-J}l.intia Hills District."
Therefore, if any part of the
area comprised in the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District were included in the municipality of Shillong before the said District came into
being, the powers conferred on the District Council, inter alia.
by
paragraph 6 of the Sixth Schedule woajd not be available to the Council in res~t of that area. The question then comes to this, did the
municipality of Shillong include within its limits the Bara Bazar area ?
The High Court has found that village Mawkhar which comprises
Bara Bazar was a part of the municipality of Shillong.
The Judgment
.of the High Court records the fact that Mawkhar was originally part
of the Kingdom of the Siem of Mylliem.
The Judgment also refers
to a notification dated the 16th January, 1934 showing that Mawkhar
and certain other villages were ceded to the British Government by
the Siem of Mylliem. The relevant portion of the notification is
as
follows :
·
·
"No. 44-1, dated New Delhi, the 16th January 1934 .
. Whereas the Siem of Mylliem in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills
'
604
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 3 s.c.R.
has ceded to the British Government' the jurisdiction neccsA ·
sary for the municipal administration in accordance
with .
the Assam Municipal Act, 1923, of the villages of l'-1awkhar,
Laitumkhrah, Mission Compound and
Jaiaw
South-East
~.lawkhar anc.l Garikhana, Mawprem anc.l Jhalupra, a Laban,.
~ ;i:nparing cun1 i\1ad.:in Laban,. Malki anti Haang Umkhra.
situate within the hounc.laries described
in
the · Schedule
annexed hereto. 'Ubjcct to the maintenance of all other his
right" antl powers aS Sk:in of Myllicm thcn:in and with th~'
-rl·~i:.-~-at;on that the· rivers Un1shipi and U111khra, so far as
they arc within the. aloresaic.l villages, shall remain the propmy or the Myllicm State :- .
·
In exercise of this jurisdiction and of. the powers con;·
· !erred by the Indian (Foreign Jurisdiction) Order in c.'oun-
.:il. ·I 902, and of all other powers cnablin~ hi111 in. that b~·
hair. and in supcrscssion or the Notification ·or the Government of India .in the Foreign Department No: 31634'-D ..
<.lated the 17th September 1913, and
of all
notifications
amending the <1ame the Governor General in Council is
pleased to dircc,t as follows :-
1. All the provisions of the Assam Municipal. Act, 1923.
tAssarn Act I of 1923), as
hcrcinbdore or
hcrernafter
amended and as in force for'thc ti1nc being i·1 the Municipality. of Shillong. and :ill notifications.
orders.
schemes,
rUl~s, forn1o;; or bye-la\VS 111adc or hereafter to be mad!.!
for
D
the 'aid Municipality shall subject to the exceptions hereinafter specified and unless otherwise declared by the GovernE
h~·;nt \)f r\ssari1, be in force ln the said village in so far as the
sam~ may he applicab!e thereto.
Provitbl that Chapter II ai1d sccti,ms 9. 51. 53. 59 (bl,
59(g),•65. 78. 217 and 218 of the saiJ Act shall not apply
t" the said villages and thut clau'c (bl of suh·scctlon (;) of
<ection 55 or the said Act shall not apply to the Umshirpi and
F
ll;1:.~hr:1 rivers ~o far a~ they arc within the said villages.
2. For the purposes ·of the application of the said provisio11s. Notifications9 orders~ s.chcn1cs, rules for1ns, and byeIJ\v-..
I") rcrerences. to the Local Government shall be read as
rcfcrcncc·t? th~.! Govern1ncnt of As~am.
(h) the said vilbgcs shall be deemed to be a municipolity
dcsi2natctl the Shillong (Administered Arca) Municipality. anit C'!cry officer or authority. for the time
being ::i.ppointcd br constituted in accordanc.:
\Vith_
the Assam Municipal Act, 1923 as
amended.
to
exercise powers or discharge duties within the Municipality of Shillong. shall exercise tho like "powers and
discharge the like duties in accordance with the said
G
H
c
n
f"
KHASI JAINTIA HILLS v. KA DREPSILA (Gupta, ].)
60 5
Act within the Shillong (Administered Area) Municipal~ty and shall ~e dee!11ed to have been duly
appomted or constituted m accordance with the said
Act.
(c) All sums received by the Municipal Board of the
Municip~lity . of Shillong and all fioos paid or levied
m the said villages shall be ;:redited to the municipal
fund of the Municipality of Shillong.
1t would appear from this notification that what was ceded to the
British Government was only "the jurisdiction necessary for the muni~
cipal. administration in accordance with the Assam Municipal Acf
1923" of certain villages including· Mawkhar and the Governor Gene-'.
ral 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 provide<.! that for the purposes of
the application of the sai~ Act, and the notifications, orders, schemes,
rules, forms and bye-Jaws made for the Shillong Municipality which
were also made applicable, these villages were to b.:: deemed as a municipality designated the Shillong (Administered Areas) Municipality.
From this notification dated January 16, 1934, and an extract from
the Demand and Bill Register of the Shillong Municipality for the year
1957-58, annexed to one of the writ pcti•ion~. wh:ch refers to SoutbEast Mawkhar as a Ward of the Shillong Municipality, the High Court
held that Bara Bazar was part of the Shillong Municipal area.
The
High Court also relied on the Khasi Siemships (Application of Laws)
Order, 1949. This order refers for ·its purpose to "Shillong Administered Areas" by which is meant "so much of the areas for the time
being comprised within the Municipality of Shillong as forms part of
the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District". The first Schedule to the
order defines the "Shillong Adiministered Areas" as comprising the
areas covered by the Shillong (Administered Areas)
Municipality,
which includes Mawkhar.
We do not think that the material on which the High Court rdicd
)Ustifies the finding that village Mawkh1~ which includes Bara Bazar
was part 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 ..,_etc made applicable to the ceded
villages, the villages were never included within the territorial jufr;-
diction 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 intende(,f to be merged in the Municipality of
Shillong though the officers and authorities exercising powers or dischargin!!, 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 da!c of the notification,
606
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975) 3 s.c.R.
empowered the provincial government to include within a municipality any local area in the vicinity of the same, was not made applicable
to the:se 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 providc5, the administr2tion 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 aliowcd the existing arrangements to continu~ at some places
for some time.
Th(: extract from the Bill and Demand Register of
the Shillong Municipality for the year 1957-5~, referred to in the
Judgment of the High Court, seems to suggest th~ second possibility.
Even if this were so., it does not mean that Mawkhar or South-East
Mawkhar was inclucled in the t<~rritorial jurisdiction of the Shillong
Municipality. In vi·~w of the notification dated the
16th January,
1934 which preserves the distinct entity of the ceded villages and in
the absence of a:iy provision effocting 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 be
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 area and as such the impugned orders issued at the instance of
the appellants to the first respondent in each of these two appeals
re6training them from constructing shops in the aforesaid area are not
invalid.
fn the result, the appcais are allowed; the Judgment and · orders
appealed from are set aside and the writ petitions are dismissed. Considering the circumstances or the case we make no order as to costs.
V.P.S
Appeals allowed~
B
c
E