Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 82 (MEG)

Preningson Ch. Sangma v. State of Meghalaya

2015-06-12

T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. A. Bujarbaruah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned Sr. GA, assisted by Ms. N.G.Shylla, learned GA appearing for all the respondents. 2. As prayed for by learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at this stage. For deciding the matter in issue in the present writ petition, the concise facts of the case leading to the filing of the present writ petition is noted. 3. It is stated in the writ petition that the writ petitioners are the original inhabitants of the New Denggagre Village, Mouza no.-IV-56, Williamnagar, District East Garo Hills, and the land in dispute in the present writ petition belongs to them. The Record of Right of the present land in dispute maintained by the authority shows that the land is recorded in their names. The authority concerned had also issued periodic lease patta in the name of the petitioners and also the petitioners are paying the land revenue of the said land. It is also the further case of the petitioners that the land in dispute is covered by patta No. 33 of the Denggagre Village, Mouza no.-IV-56, Williamnagar, and the name of the petitioners are recorded in the patta. 4. It is also stated in the writ petition that the petitioners are occupying the land in dispute as owners from time immemorial. The authority had demarcated the land in dispute and to the utter shock and surprise to the petitioners, the Superintendent of Police, East Garo Hills District issued the impugned notice dated 25-05-2015 directing the petitioners to vacate the said land in dispute. On receipt of the impugned notice dated 25-05-2015, the petitioners who are in peaceful possession of the land in dispute filed an application on 27-05-2015 before the Deputy Commissioner, East Garo Hills District for checking and confirming the boundaries of the land in dispute, but till date the Deputy Commissioner, East Garo Hills District neither replied to the said application nor has taken up any action for demarcating the boundaries of the land in dispute. It is also the further case of the petitioners that the Superintendent of Police, East Garo Hills District cannot take the law in his own hands for evicting the petitioners from the land in dispute. It is also the further case of the petitioners that the Superintendent of Police, East Garo Hills District cannot take the law in his own hands for evicting the petitioners from the land in dispute. It is also the further case of the petitioners that the prescribed procedure should be followed in taking up the eviction process. Ms. A. Bujarbaruah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by referring to the provision of Meghalaya Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1980 contended that the Superintendent of Police is not the competent authority for taking up the eviction procedure. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also further contended if the eviction procedure is to be taken up, only the competent authority shall take up the eviction procedure and also the petitioners should have been given the opportunity to be heard before passing any order of eviction by following the procedure prescribed under the Meghalaya Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1980. 5. Mr. N.D.Chullai, learned Sr. GA appearing for the respondents also stated that even unauthorized occupants of the public premises are to be evicted by following the procedure prescribed as under the said Act and the Superintendent of Police is not the competent authority for taking up the eviction procedure. 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the procedure prescribed under the said Act, 1980 should be followed even for evicting the unauthorized occupants. In the present case, according to the petitioners, they are the owner of the land in dispute. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the said respondents to follow the procedure prescribed under the Meghalaya Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1980 in taking up the stage of eviction of the petitioners, if at all necessary. It is also made clear that eviction procedure should be taken up by the authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner. Incase of taking up the eviction procedure against the petitioners from the land in dispute, the petitioners should be given sufficient opportunity to put up their case and also to produce documentary and oral evidence in support of their case. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned notice dated 25-05-2015 is hereby quashed and set aside. Incase of taking up the eviction procedure against the petitioners from the land in dispute, the petitioners should be given sufficient opportunity to put up their case and also to produce documentary and oral evidence in support of their case. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned notice dated 25-05-2015 is hereby quashed and set aside. The occupation of the land in dispute by the petitioners shall not be disturbed till the decision is taken by the Deputy Commissioner in accordance with the Meghalaya Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1980. 8. Writ petition is allowed.