The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG. WP (C) No. 238 (SH)/2012 Shri. Uma Shankar Mishra, S/o (L) Dr.Pramila Mishra, C/o Chunnilal Sarawgi & Company, Sati Jaymati Road, Arya Chowk, Sarabbhati, Guwahati-781016. -Vs- :::: Petitioner 1. The State of Meghalaya, Represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Meghalaya. 2. The Secretary of the Govt. of Meghalaya, Revenue Department, Shillong. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The Director General of Police, Meghalaya, Shillong. The Deputy Commissioner, Ri Bhoi District, Nongpoh, Meghalaya. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ri Bhoi District, Nongpoh, Meghalaya. The Chief Executive Member, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong-2, Meghalaya. The Syiem of Mylliem, Dorbar House, Mawkhar, Shillong. The Syiem of Raid Marwet, Under Syiem of Mylliem, Village & PO 9th Mile, Baridwa, Khanapara, Meghalaya. Smti.Sakina Begum @ Sapna Begum, R/o Flat No.101, 1st Floor, Dihar Apartment, Bishnu Rabha Path, Bye Lane No.2, Beltola Tiniali, Guwahati-781026, Assam. 10. Shri. Ramesh Kalita, Motor Mechanic, Near Kali Mandir, Basistha Army Dairy Farm, Out Post, Pillangkata, Meghalaya. 11. Smti.Sudipa De @ Mitra De, Near Chief Minister Vigilance Office, Christian Basti, PS Dispur, Guwahati, Assam. Page 1 of 12
Legal Reasoning
12. Sri.Dipu Choudhary, D.T.O. Dalal, Ulubari, Guwahati-1, C/o Smti.Sudip De, Near Chief Minister Vigilance Office, Christian Basti, Guwahati, Assam. 13. The Headman, Them Marwet, PS Khanapara, District:Ri Bhoi, Meghalaya. 14. Ms. Poonam Yadav, Advocate, Shillong Bar Association, Shillong-1, Meghalaya. 15. Shri. N A K Syiem, MCS, Ex-Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, C/o Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Shillong. 16. Sri. Arup Marmaniang, Ex-Headman village Khanapara, District:Ri Bhoi, Meghalaya. 17. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Represented by Secretary, Home, New Delhi. 18. The Central Bureau of Investigation, Represented by the Director General, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. :::: Respondents For the Petitioner : For the Respondents : Mr. R Dubey, AB Kayastha, PK Govadia, S Agarwal, Advs. Mr. ND Chullai, Sr. Adv. Mr. VK Jindal, Sr. Adv. Mr. S Dey, Adv. Mr.R Deb Nath, CGC WP (C) No. 212 (SH)/2012 Shri. Uma Shankar Mishra, S/o (L) Dr.Pramila Mishra, C/o Chunnilal Sarawgi & Company, Sati Jaymati Road, Arya Chowk, Sarabbhati, Guwahati-781016. -Vs- 1. The State of Meghalaya, Represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Meghalaya. :::: Petitioner Page 2 of 12 2. The Secretary of the Govt. of Meghalaya, Revenue Department, Shillong. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The Director General of Police, Meghalaya, Shillong. The Deputy Commissioner, Ri Bhoi District, Nongpoh, Meghalaya. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ri Bhoi District, Nongpoh, Meghalaya. The Chief Executive Member, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong-2, Meghalaya. The Syiem of Mylliem, Dorbar House, Mawkhar, Shillong. The Syiem of Raid Marwet, Under Syiem of Mylliem, Village & PO 9th Mile, Baridwa, Khanapara, Meghalaya. Newyearly Thangkhiew, D/o (L) Sulesing Syiem, R/o Nongkseh 3rd Mile, Upper Shillong, Meghalaya. 10. Smti. Lukhi Narleng, D/o (L) Jagu Ram Lalung (Ex Headman, Village – Khanapara), R/o Khanapara, Meghalaya. 11. Shri. Ram Avtar Borakia @ Shri Ram Awatar Agarwal, C/o P.M. Agarwal, Resident of Meghalaya Cement Ltd., (Toposon Brand) M.G. Road, Lohia House, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati-781001, District: Kamrup, Assam. 12. The Headman, Them Marwet, PS Khanapara, District:Ri Bhoi, Meghalaya. 13. Shri. Dhiraj Das, Husband of Smti.Lukhi Narleng, Khanapara, District:Ri Bhoi, Meghalaya. 14. Ms. Poonam Yadav, Advocate, Shillong Bar Association, Shillong-1, Meghalaya. 15. Shri. N A K Syiem, MCS, Ex-Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, C/o Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Shillong. Page 3 of 12 16. Sri. Arup Marmaniang, Ex-Headman village Khanapara, District:Ri Bhoi, Meghalaya. 17. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Represented by Secretary, Home, New Delhi. 18. 19. 20. The Central Bureau of Investigation, Represented by the Director General, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. The State of Assam, Represented by the Chief Secretary, Dispur, Guwahati-781006. The Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. Of Assam, Revenue Department, Dispur, Guwahati-781006. 21. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) Guwahati, 781001. 22. Meghalaya Infratech Ltd., A company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Khanapara, Ri Bhoi District, Meghalaya. :::: Respondents For the Petitioner : For the Respondents : Mr.AK Bhattacharya, Sr Adv. Mr. R Dubey, AB Kayastha, PK Govadia, Advs. Mr. ND Chullai, Sr. Adv. Mr.HS Thangkhiew, Sr. Adv. Mr.N Mozika, Adv Mr. VGK Kynta, Sr. Adv Mr. K Paul, Mr. S Thapa Mr. H Nongkhlaw, Advs Mr. R Deb Nath, CGC. WP (C) No. 363 (SH)/2012 Shri. Uma Shankar Mishra, S/o (L) Dr.Pramila Mishra, C/o Chunnilal Sarawgi & Company, Sati Jaymati Road, Arya Chowk, Sarabbhati, Guwahati-781016. -Vs- 1. The State of Meghalaya, Represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Meghalaya. :::: Petitioner Page 4 of 12 2. The Secretary of the Govt. of Meghalaya, Revenue Department, Shillong. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The Deputy Commissioner, Ri Bhoi District, Nongpoh, Meghalaya. The Chief Executive Member, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong-2, Meghalaya. The Syiem of Mylliem, Dorbar House, Mawkhar, Shillong. The Syiem of Raid Marwet, Under Syiem of Mylliem, Village & PO 9th Mile, Baridwa, Khanapara, Meghalaya. Shri. Ram Avtar Borakia, C/o P.M. Agarwal, R/o 19, Arunodaya Path, Prakash Kunj, Narayan Nagar, Kamarpara, Bharulumukh, Guwahati, Assam. Meghalaya Infratech Ltd., Having its registered office at Khanapara, Meghalaya. Smti. Shaikordor Rumnong, Represented by Power of Attorney holder Shri.Phon Syih, S/o Late B. Sushan, R/o Thangakar, PS Khliehriat, District: Jaintia Hills, Meghalaya. 10. Shri. Rimphang Pohshna, S/o Kiang Tongper, R/o Rymbai, PO Hurai, Jaintia Hills, Meghalaya. 11. Shri. N A K Syiem, MCS, Presently serving as the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Amlarem, Meghalaya. 12. The Headman, Village Khanapara, PS Khanapara, District: Ri Bhoi, Meghalaya. 13. Sri. Arup Marmaniang, Ex-Headman village Khanapara, PS Khanapara District:Ri Bhoi, Meghalaya. 14. Shri.Phon Syih, S/o Late B Sushan, R/o Thangakar, PS Khliehriat, District: Jaintia Hills, Meghalaya. :::: Respondents Page 5 of 12 For the Petitioner For the Respondents : : Mr. R Dubey, AB Kayastha, PK Govadia, Advs. Mr. ND Chullai, Sr. Adv. Mr.HS Thangkhiew, Sr. Adv. Mr.N Mozika, Adv Mr. VGK Kynta, Sr. Adv BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T NANDAKUMAR SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING). Date of hearing Date of Judgment & Order : : 04.09.2013 04.09.2013 (cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:14)(cid:15) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:12) (cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:14)(cid:15) (cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:14)(cid:15) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:12) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:12) These three writ petitions i.e. WP(C)No.(SH)238/2012, WP(C)No.(SH)212/2012 and WP(C)No.(SH)363/2012 involving the two plots of
Decision
land of the writ petitioner are taking up for disposal by this common judgment and order. The facts leading to the filing of these three writ petitions has a chequered history. 2. Heard Mr. R Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. ND Chullai, learned senior counsel assisted by KP Bhattacharjee, learned GA appearing for the State respondents, Mr. HS Thangkhiew, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Mozika, learned counsel for the respondents No.7 & 8 in WP(C)No.(SH)363/2012 and respondents No. 11 & 22 in WP(C)No.(SH)212/2013, Mr. VGK Kynta, learned senior counsel for the District Council, Mr. VK Jindal, learned senior counsel for the respondent-CBI, Mr. R Deb Nath, learned CGC, Mr. K Paul, learned counsel for the respondent No.14 in WP(C)No.(SH)212/2012 and Mr H Nongkhlaw, learned counsel for the respondent No.10 in WP(C)No.(SH)212/2012. Page 6 of 12 3. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner had filed two civil suits i.e. T.S.No.3/2008, now pending before the Court of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ri Bhoi District, Nongpoh and T.S. No.2/2007 of the Court of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ri Bhoi District, Nongpoh. For certain reasons not known to the writ petitioner, the said two civil suits were pending for a considerable number of years without any progress. It appears that Shri.Uma Shankar Mishra wrote a letter addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Ri Bhoi District, Nongpoh containing serious allegations against his Assistant for keeping the said two civil suits pending without any progress. A copy of the said letter was also addressed to the Hon’ble Chief Justice, Gauhati High Court. 4. The Hon’ble Chief Justice, Gauhati High Court on receipt of the said letter taken up two Suo Motu cases i.e. WP(C)(SH) Suo Motu No.306/2009 and WP(C)(SH) Suo Motu No.311/2009. The learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court vide order dated 25.02.2011, had dismissed the said two Suo Motu writ petitions for default. Shri. Uma Shankar Mishra, on whose letter the said two Suo Motu cases have been registered, filed review applications viz. Review Application(SH)No.4/2011 (Ref: WP(C)(SH) Suo Motu No.306/2009) and Review Application (SH)No.5/2011 (Ref: WP(C)(SH) Suo Motu No.311/2009) for reviewing the said order dated 25.02.2011 for dismissing the said two Suo Motu writ petitions i.e. WP(C)(SH) Suo Motu No.306/2009 and WP(C)(SH) Suo Motu No.311/2009 on default. 5. The Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court by a common judgment and order dated 30.03.2011, had disposed of the said two review applications with an observation that Shri Uma Shankar Mishra, would file an appropriate application in the matter in accordance with law which would be considered on its own merit. The said order of the Hon’ble Chief Justice dated 30.03.2011 reads as follows:- Page 7 of 12 “30.03.2011 Originally these cases were taken up Suo Motu on the basis of a letter dated 29.10.2009, addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Ri Bhoi District, Nongpoh, by Shri Uma Shankar Mishra. A copy of this letter was endorsed to the Chief Justice. The complaint of Shri Uma Shankar Mishra, is that disposal of Title Suit No. 2 of 2007 and Title Suit No.3 of 2008, is being unduly delayed by respondent No.1 who is seized of these Title Suits. I am of the opinion that the appropriate course of action by Shri Uma Shankar Mishra to take is to move an application for transfer if he has any legitimate grievance against respondent No.1. It would not be appropriate to entertain a request of this nature on the administrative side. It appears that notwithstanding the above, the matter appears to have been taken up for consideration and on earlier occasions time was granted to learned counsel for Shri Uma Shankar Mishra, to obtain instructions. It was noted in the order dated 25.02.2011, that instructions were not forthcoming and therefore the learned Single Judge was of the view that Shri Uma Shankar Mishra, is not interested in pursuing the case. The Suo Motu petition was accordingly dismissed. It is stated by the learned counsel for Shri Uma Shankar Mishra, that an affidavit was in fact filed on 24.11.2010 but that affidavit is not on record. A Review of the order dated 25.02.2011 is sought for on the ground the communication sent by Shri Uma Shankar Mishra, and therefore, it was not as if he was the petitioner in the matter. that Suo Motu notice was taken of It is not necessary for me to go into this issue since I am of the view that the appropriate course of action for Shri Uma Shankar Mishra, would be to file an appropriate application in the matter in accordance with law which would be considered on its own merit. With this, the Review petition is disposed of.” 6. The petitioner filed WP(C)No.(SH)212/2012 being aggrieved by the delay in disposal or slow progress of T.S.No.3/2008 pending in the Court of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ri Bhoi District, Nongpoh. This Court also passed an order dated 10.08.2012 in WP(C)No.(SH)212/2012, which reads as follows:- Page 8 of 12 “10.8.2012 in The petitioner is aggrieved by the slow progress of the Title Suit No.3 of 2008, pending the Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Ri-Bhoi District at Nongpoh. In the Suit, the plaintiff challenges the Patta No.7 of 1995 dated 14.8.1995, issued to the defendant No.2 Smti Lukhi Narleng, by the Syiem of Mylliem as void ab initio and sought declaration for his own title on the Suit land. the Court of Mr AK Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel, submits that there are several defendants in the Suit and because of the adjournment sought by them on one ground or the other, the Suit has not proceeded expeditiously. The petitioner refers to the Suo Motto proceeding registered as WP(C) No.(SH)311 of 2009 and the Court’s order dated 30.3.2011 in the Review application No.4 of 2011 to project that on earlier occasion also, this Court was inceisin of the plaintiff’s grievance. Mr Bhattacharjee submits that after the Review application was disposed of, the respondent No.11 (defendant No.3 Shri. Ram Avtar Borakia @ Shri Ram Awatar Agarwal), along with respondent No.22 ( M/s Meghalaya Infratech Ltd.) had started developmental activities on the Suit land. Since the senior counsel submits that petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the slow progress in the Title Suit 3 of 2008, and seeing that the main allegation is against the defendants in the Suit, bearing in mind the Court’s order in the earlier Suo Motto proceeding, let a Notice returnable in six weeks be issued. Mr ND Chullai, learned senior GA, accepts notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Mr R Deb Nath, learned CGC, accepts notice for respondent No.17. Extra copies be furnished to them. Petitioner to ensure service on the remaining respondents by Registered Post. In addition, the petitioner is permitted to serve dasti notice on the respondents by routing the notice through the Court’s Registry. An affidavit of service may thereafter be filed in the Court. List it accordingly on 19.9.2012. (cid:1) 7. In the WP(C)No.(SH)363/2012, the petitioner also prayed for quashing the Sale Deeds dated 29.10.2009 and dated 15.06.2010 entered into between the respondent No.8 (Meghalaya Infratech Ltd.) and respondents No.9 (Smti.Shaikordor Rumnong) and respondent No.10 (Shri.Rimphang Pohshna) and also the order dated 15.06.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ri Bhoi District, Nongpoh for granting permission for the sale of lands. It is the case Page 9 of 12 of the petitioner in WP(C)No.(SH)363/2012 that the lands for which the said Sale Deeds i.e. dated 29.10.2009 and dated 15.06.2010 were executed belong to the petitioner and as such, the respondents No.9 (Smti.Shaikordor Rumnong) and respondent No.10 (Shri.Rimphang Pohshna), have no right and title to the said lands. The issues i.e. (i) as to whether the said lands for which the said two Sale Deeds i.e. dated 29.10.2009 and dated 15.06.2010 were executed belong to the petitioner or not and (ii) whether the said lands for which the said two Sale Deeds i.e. dated 29.10.2009 and dated 15.06.2010 were executed are parts of the suit premises of the T.S. No.3/2008 or not cannot be decided in the present writ proceedings without examining oral and documentary evidence of the parties in support of their respective cases, and the writ proceeding is not the proper forum for recording oral and documentary evidences of the parties. 8. Those two issues could be decided by the the trial court in T.S. No.3/2008. It is made clear that incase the said T.S.No.3/2008 is decided in favour of the petitioner, the consequence will be that the Sale Deeds dated 29.10.2009 and dated 15.06.2009 will be null and void. The consequence of it would be that the impugned permission dated 15.06.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ri Bhoi District, Nongpoh, will have no consequences. In other words, the said permission order dated 15.06.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ri Bhoi District, Nongpoh, will have no force in the eye of law. 9. On perusal of the record, it appears that while the petitioner had been pursuing for the speedy disposal of the said two civil suits i.e. T.S. No.3/2008 and T.S. No.2/2007 by filing different writ petitions and by filing complaints to the different authorities, unfortunately, the said T.S. No.2/2007 had been dismissed on default. Again the petitioner instead of approaching the trial court for setting aside the said order dismissing the said suit i.e. T.S.No.2/2007 on default for restoring the said suit to the file, he again filed writ petition. In this Page 10 of 12 situation, this Court is compelled to make an observation that the procedure is not mistress of law and the procedure is handmaid and should not be instrumental in obstructing justice. Because of certain technical loophole, the petitioner should not be left without remedy for further proceeding of T.S. No.2/2007. Accordingly, in the given case, the petitioner is permitted to approach the trial court for setting aside the order for dismissing the T.S.No.2/2007 on default and the trial court, incase the petitioner files an application for setting aside the order for dismissing the T.S.No.2/2007 on default, shall condone the delay in filing such application and also shall restore the T.S.No.2/2007 for trial and decide the T.S.No.2/2007 according to merit. However, it is made clear that the trial court shall give sufficient opportunities to the parties to put up their respective cases in T.S.No.2/2007. 10. In the above factual backdrop and also taking into consideration of many subsequent events, the petitioner, if necessary, may file an application for amendment of the plaint of T.S.No.3/2008 for bringing the subsequent events, for impleading the parties and also for amendment of the relief(s) sought for in T.S.No.8/2008. Again in the peculiar nature of this case, the petitioner is also permitted to file similar applications, if necessary, in T.S.No.2/2007. Considering the number of years had already been spent in seeking remedy for a direction to the trial court for disposing of the said two suits as expeditiously as possible, this Court is compelled to direct the trial court to dispose of the said two civil suits i.e. T.S.No.3/2008 and T.S.No.2/2007, for which the petitioner may file an application for setting aside the order for dismissing of T.S.No.2/2007 on default, as expeditiously as possible. It is also made clear that by taking into consideration of the National Mission for Delivery of Justice & Legal Reforms, 2009 and also Order XVII Rule 1 of the CPC, the learned trial court shall not allow the applications for adjournment on flimsy grounds. Further, the parties are directed to cooperate with the trial court in disposing of the said two civil suits as Page 11 of 12 expeditiously as possible. Because of the extreme circumstances of this case, the petitioner, if necessary, may even seek the prayer for withdrawing the said two civil suits with liberty to file fresh civil suits. 11. The Registry is directed to return the sealed envelopes submitted by the State Government as well as by the Central Government to them. 12. With the above observations and directions, these three writ petitions are disposed of. (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4) CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) Page 12 of 12