Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 61 (MEG)

Saraswati Viswakarma v. State of Meghalaya

2016-11-28

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2016
ORDER : Dinesh Maheshwari, J. 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner, who has filed a Title Suit [No.38 (H) of 2016] under Section 10 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 claiming her share by way of inheritance in the property left by her deceased father; and has also filed an application for temporary injunction therein, seeks to challenge the Lease Agreement dated 10.01.2011, No Objection Certificate dated 20.01.2011 and Sanction for Construction dated 26.03.2016 as issued by the respondents No.1 to 3 in favour of the respondents No.4 to 6 in relation to the property in dispute. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the application for temporary injunction filed by her in the Title Suit, the learned Trial Court granted ex-parte injunction on 30.08.2016 and thereafter, show cause was filed by the defendants. It is contended that on perusal of the show cause so filed, by the petitioner realised that her brothers, with ulterior motive, forged an alleged Will by their father, although no such Will was ever executed. The petitioner has also alleged that in the matter regarding the alleged Will, probate proceedings in Probate Case No.1 (T) of 2016 are pending in the Court of ADC (Judicial), Shillong but then, the legatees of disputed Will got their names mutated in the record and obtained the impugned Lease Agreement and on that basis, also obtained the impugned No Objection Certificate and Sanction for Construction. 3. It has been strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that grant of such Lease Agreement and issuance of No Objection Certificate and construction permission are the actions wholly illegal and unauthorised on the part of the respondents No.1 to 3 and hence, the petitioner is entitled to maintain her challenge thereto by way of this writ petition. It is submitted that the petitioner was not aware of such proceedings and of such documents until filing of show cause to her application for temporary injunction; but after coming to know about such documents/proceedings, has preferred this writ petition against such acts of the State authorities, which are required to be dealt with in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 4. Having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is not persuaded to entertain the matter in the writ jurisdiction. 5. 4. Having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is not persuaded to entertain the matter in the writ jurisdiction. 5. This writ petition is not to be entertained for the simple reason that the claim of the petitioner in the property in question is sub judice in the Civil Court, when the petitioner has admittedly filed the aforesaid Title Suit No. 38 (T) of 2016. In the said suit, the petitioner has sought declaration of her right and title as also apportionment of her share as being the daughter of the deceased owner of the property. In the given set of circumstances, as divulged by the petitioner herself, until her rights are determined in the Civil Court, parallel litigation in the name of challenge to the dealing of the State authorities cannot be entertained in the writ jurisdiction. In the other words, when the matter is sub judice in the Civil Court on the title claim of the petitioner, any attempt on her part to question any of the dealings qua the property in question by the State authorities by way of writ petition cannot be countenanced. As per the petitioner's own showings, even the probate proceedings regarding the Will in question are pending. Obviously, all the rights of the parties are to be determined in the regular proceedings pending in the Civil Court. This Court is clearly of the view that entertaining of this writ petition at this stage would be taking up a parallel enquiry against the State authorities in relation to the disputed claim of inheritance to the property left by the deceased father of the petitioner. Such a course remains entirely impermissible in law. 6. Of course, it goes without saying that in case of any genuine legal grievance, recourse to regular remedies in accordance with law is always open for the petitioner. 7. For what has been observed herein above, exercise of writ jurisdiction in this matter is declined and this writ petition stands dismissed summarily. 8. However, it is made clear that dismissal of this writ petition shall not be construed as pronouncement against the petitioner on any of the rights as claimed; and this order shall otherwise have no bearing on determination of the relevant issues in the pending litigation/s. Petition dismissed.