Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 35 (MEG)

Amelia Sohliya v. State Of Meghalaya

2019-02-19

S.R.SEN

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. S.C.Chakrawarty, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. R.Sumer, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. H.Abraham, learned GA on behalf of the respondents No. 1-4 and Mr. K.Paul, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent No. 5. The petitioners case in a nutshell is that: "The petitioner is a citizen of India belonging to the Khasi Tribe of Meghalaya who usually and habitually resides at the aforestated address. There was a dispute between the petitioner and her neighbor Smti. Twes Nongsiej regarding a portion of the petitioners land which had been permitted to be used for ingress and egress into the neighbours property, the same led to the institution of the Revenue Case No. L.14/3(6)/2012 between the petitioner and the petitioners said neighbor which was finally decided by the final order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) at Shillong, conveyed by his Letter No. L.14/3(6)2012/18 dated 04.06.2013 to the parties to that dispute. From the said final order in the said Revenue Case it is seen that the Additional Deputy Commissioner had taken note of the fact that the records produced by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Shillong Central Division, Shillong, showed that the disputed portion of the petitioners land included a portion of the road constructed by the Public Works Department during 2007- 2008 and a map was also available with regard thereto but there was no observation or finding to the effect that the Public Works Department had any records to show that that portion of the road was owned by the Public works Department or that the Public Works Department ever made any claim of such ownership. As such the only finding given by the Honourable Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) was that if the entire disputed portion of that road was allowed to be fenced by a boundary wall by the petitioner then the ingress and egress to the said neighbours property would become restricted whereupon a direction was given to maintain status quo. As such the only finding given by the Honourable Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) was that if the entire disputed portion of that road was allowed to be fenced by a boundary wall by the petitioner then the ingress and egress to the said neighbours property would become restricted whereupon a direction was given to maintain status quo. The said final order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) amply clarifies that the records of Public Works Department merely indicate that the said disputed portion of the road was constructed only once by the Public Works Department during the year 2007-2008, that the Public Works Department had no records to show that they were the owners of the said disputed portion of the road and that actually the Public Works Department never even made a claim that they were owners of that road. Subsequently the matter went on an appeal before the Meghalaya Board of Revenue where a compromise was arrived at in a Lok Adalat which accordingly gave the award as recorded by the order dated 11.12.2014, of the Chairman of the Board. However, the petitioners said neighbor assailed the said award of the Lok Adalat and the order of the Meghalaya Board of Revenue before Honourable The High Court of Meghalaya by filing the Writ Petition(Civil) No. 1 of 2015 which was finally disposed off by the judgment and order dated 17.03.2017 without interfering with the impugned award and order and the Writ Appeal No. 4 of 2017 assailing that order dated 17.03.2017 was also disposed off by the order dated 18.04.2017 upholding the said order in the writ petition. After Honourable The High Court of Meghalaya gave the said judgments and orders dated 17.03.2017 and 18.04.2017, the petitioner wrote her letter dated 28.04.2017 to the Deputy Commissioner at Shillong on the subject of fencing her said land and property at Dunoon Compound, Kenchs Trace, Shillong informing him about the said award of the Lok Adalat, order of the Board of Revenue and the orders of the Honourable High Court and requested him to allow her to build the fencing wall as per that award and the said orders and also to provide her with security as she would be building the said wall on 01.05.2017 onwards. Only after the sequence of events described hereinabove, did the petitioner construct the compound wall of her said compound and the construction of the same was completed quite sometime ago and the completion report duly intimated to the Deputy Commissioner. By the said impugned letters dated 31.07.2017 and 14.08.2017, it has been alleged that the petitioner has encroached upon a Public Works Department Road by constructing a compound wall which has been revealed from the official records available with the respondent No. 4 but the exact nature of such records has not been disclosed for reasons which appear to be best known to the respondent no. 4. After receiving the said impugned letters dated 31.07.2017 and 14.08.2017 the petitioner had duly represented the respondents by her letter dated 18.08.2017 addressed to the respondent No. 4 with a copy to the respondent No. 3 but till date there has been no response to the same. The Petitioner had sought for justice but the same has been denied to her and now, having no other equally efficacious remedy available she is filing this instant writ petition." 2. Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.C Chakrawarty submits that the matter was initially settled between the petitioner and by the respondents before the Lok Adalat. Learned Sr. counsel also referred to the earlier Writ Petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 1 of 2015 where a judgment and order was delivered on 17/03/2017 as well as the judgment delivered on 18/04/2017 by Division Bench of this High Court in Writ Appeal bearing W.A. No. 4 of 2017. 3. On perusal of the said judgments, it is understood and clear that since the matter was settled before the Lok Adalat, this Court as well as the Division Bench had taken a view that there is no prima facie case to entertain. However, it is not necessary to discuss those judgments in detail further as it is on record. I make it clear that Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 makes it clear that "Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award." Similarly, in this case also when the matter was settled in the Lok Adalat between the parties, further interference of the Court is not tenable in law. 4. 4. Learned State counsel for the respondents No. 1-4, Mr. H.Abraham submits that he has no dispute or any grievance or objection nor denies that the matter was settled before the Lok Adalat. The only question is that the petitioner while constructing the boundary wall encroached some part of Government land. If it is so, Government should have approached an appropriate forum. 5. Learned Sr. counsel on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. S.C Chakrawarty also pointed to Annexure -7 (page-29) as well as Annexure-9 (page-31). From the said Annexures, it appears that the petitioner had informed the Deputy Commissioner that she had constructed the boundary wall and also expressed her gratitude to the Deputy Commissioner for providing security to construct the wall. 6. It is also noticed from the Annexure-9 dated 14th August, 2017 that the Executive Engineer, P.W.D.(Roads), Shillong Central Division, Shillong had written a letter to the petitioner that she has encroached the P.W.D land approximately 12.15 square meter and directed her to dismantle the compound wall from the said P.W.D. road. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No. 5, Mr K. Paul submits that he is not disputing the settlement of the matter before the Lok Adalat. However, respondent No. 5 is suffering due to the boundary wall and her entry is partially blocked. 8. After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties, I am of the view that once the matter is settled in the Lok Adalat, it is a bar under Section 21(2) to reopen it which is also agreed by all the learned counsels for the parties present before the Court. However, the question remains about the encroachment; if at all any encroachment is done, a specific law is available on what action to be taken. But it appears that in one way the Government is giving security to construct the boundary wall and the other way notice is being issued to dismantle the wall. I cannot understand the position of the Government, why they are taking diverse views and stand. 9. If at all there is any encroachment by the petitioner they should approach the appropriate forum and the appropriate forum will do what is necessary after hearing and giving opportunities to the parties in accordance with law. 10. I cannot understand the position of the Government, why they are taking diverse views and stand. 9. If at all there is any encroachment by the petitioner they should approach the appropriate forum and the appropriate forum will do what is necessary after hearing and giving opportunities to the parties in accordance with law. 10. Therefore, I find that the Annexure-9 i.e., the letter address to the petitioner dated 14th August, 2017 has no stand in the eye of law. Accordingly, I set aside the said order. 11. With this observation and direction, the petition is allowed and stands disposed of. Misc. case also stands disposed of.