STATE OF MEGHALAYA Vs. B.K. DEY SAWIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal filed by the appellants/respondents 1 -5 in the writ petition is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.09.2011 passed in WP(C) No. (SH)415/2010 filed by the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner wherein and where -under, the learned Single Judge inspite of clear indication that the facts of the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner's case in the writ petition are clearly disputed by the respondent No. 3 i.e. the Additional Director of Survey, Govt. of Meghalaya in his counter affidavit and also by the respondent No. 4 i.e. the Secretary, Public Works Department (PWD), Govt. of Meghalaya and the respondent No. 5 i.e. the Chief Engineer (Building), Public Works Department (PWD), Govt. of Meghalaya in their counter affidavits, allowed the writ petition by directing the respondent No. 3 to demarcate plot No. 18 recorded in the name of the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner in accordance with the findings of the respondent No. 2 in his letter dated 11.05.2010 (Annexure -P -23 to the writ petition) and thereafter, take necessary and appropriate action for restoring that portion of the plot found to be encroached upon by the PWD in favour of the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner and also that necessary and consequential amendment shall be made by the respondent No. 2 in the Renewed Lease Deed dated 08.05.2008 in respect of the plot in question after taking into account the encroached portion.

(2.) HEARD Mr. K Khan, learned Addl. Sr. GA appearing for the appellants/respondents and Mr. HS Thangkhiew, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Mozika, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner.

(3.) ON 04.04.1997, the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner while on visit to the plot noticed that there were fresh encroachments by the PWD on the plot from the side of the PWD quarters as evident from the fencing put up around the encroached area. This was immediately brought to the notice of the respondent No. 2 vide his letter dated 05.04.1997 with the request for the second time to depute his officers to demarcate the boundary of the plot. The respondent No. 1/writ petitioner also admitted that he had sold out some portions of his land i.e. plot No. 18 to one Shri. Pardunan Kr. Singha and that portion of land is plotted as plot No. 18 -A. It is further stated in the writ petition that the said plot i.e. plot No. 18 -A has an area of 6,700 sq. ft. The respondent No. 1/writ petitioner had further stated that due to financial compulsions, he had caused a wall to be constructed around the undisputed 32,000 sq. ft. of the plot to prevent further encroachments by the PWD and sold the same to Karbi Anglong Autonomous District Council on or about December, 2006 and the said portion had again plotted as plot No. 18 -B. After selling out those portions, the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner made a hypothetical calculation, by assuming his original plot of land should be 1 (one) acre, that the remaining portions of his land i.e. plot No. 18 should be 0.846 acre and the PWD encroached upon his plot to the extent of 0.174 acre (7,588 sq. ft.).