LEEQUA MUKHIM Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this case in a narrow compass is that the petitioner's Patta, indicating his right over a plot of land situated at Laitkor Nongdaneng, Shillong-10, was cancelled by the Respondent No.8, ostensibly without he being heard or being allowed to participate in the inquiry proceedings, instituted by the District Council respondents, in connection with rival claims over the said land.

(2.) It has been contended by Mr. L. Nghaka, learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner had acquired ownership rights over a plot of land measuring 156 acres more or less, situated at Laitkor Nongdaneng, Shillong-10, on the same being bought from the respondent No. 11 by Deed of Sale dtd. 5/7/2016, who in turn had possessed the land by virtue of a Gift Deed dtd. 10/10/1988, executed by his mother. Thereafter he submits, a Patta being No. 165 of 2017, had been issued by the respondent No. 8 (Syiem of Mylliem), in recognition of this right, but subsequently on September 2018, the petitioner was served with a summons dtd. 21/9/2018, issued by the respondent No. 7, asking him to appear before the Inquiry Officer in connection with the said plot of land. The learned counsel submits thereafter, pursuant to the purported inquiry, the respondent No. 8, cancelled the Patta and confirmed the ownership of the respondent No. 10, over the plot of land, without the petitioner being afforded any opportunity of hearing. It has been urged that, this is the main grievance of the petitioner in writ petition, notwithstanding other attendant facts and circumstances.

(3.) The State respondents who have been arrayed as respondents No. 1-4, have filed an affidavit and also challenged the maintainability of the writ petition, on the ground that, apart from the writ petitioner approaching this Court, with unclean hands, he is seeking to achieve wrongful gains by resorting to the instant proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution, to try to establish non-existent rights, inasmuch as, the entire case and issues raised are hit by the Principles of Res judicata. Mr. N. D. Chullai, learned AAG assisted by Mr. A. Kharwanlang, learned GA for the State respondents submits that the land in question forms part of the Laitkor Protected Forest Compartment No. 6, which had been leased out in perpetuity, to the then British Government vide lease document dtd. 2/12/1874, and that with the lapse of British paramountcy, the land vests with the State of Meghalaya, a position that has been affirmed even by a Full Bench Decision of the Gauhati High Court in the case of Nongkhlaw Clan and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1997 (II) GLT 652 (FB). Learned AAG has also drawn the attention of this Court to the lease document which is annexed to the affidavit.