JOSIMUDDIN AHMED Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. MF Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. NG Shylla, learned GA appearing for the respondents No. 1 -3, Ms. R Gurung, learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 & 5 and Mr. N Mozika, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6.

(2.) THE prayer sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to the respondent No. 3 i.e. Officer -in -Charge, Sadar Police Station to restore the possession of the rented premises to the petitioner and also for further direction to award adequate compensation to the petitioner by the respondents No. 4 & 5. At the very outset, it appears that this writ petition is a suit for recovery of possession but in disguise of writ petition. A suit for recovery of possession is to be filed in the civil court and not by way of writ petition. By the skilful drafting of the writ petition one cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a matter which comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the civil court.

(3.) AS the petitioner had an apprehension that he may be evicted by the respondents No. 4 & 5 from the said premises forcibly, the petitioner filed Title Suit being T.S. No. 2(H) of 2010 against the respondents No. 4 & 5 in the Court of the Assistant District Judge, Shillong. The relief sought for in the said civil suit i.e. T.S. No. 2 (H) of 2010 reads as follows: - -