MONEN SANGMA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are the joint Nokmas in respect of Samandagiri Akhing, being represented in the present writ application by their Attorney Sri Heltone N.Marak, questioned the validity of the impugned Office letter/ order dated 22.11.2000, bearing No. MFC/ 13/62 as in Annexure-13 to the writ petition issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Meghalaya, Shillong, (respondent No. 3), coupled with a prayer for direction on the respondents 1 to 4 and each and every one of them to hand over possession of the land measuring 4013 Bighas 1 Katha and 14 Lechas (536.6 hectres) which has already been demarcated and held to be the integral part of Samandagiri Akhing immediately along with all the properties, standing trees and other valuable forest produces, and to pay adequate compensation for unauthorised use and occupation for depriving the petitioners of their usufructs for more than three decades, and for illegal extraction of trees and other valuable forest produces, or, in the alternative, to acquire the entire land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and to pay just compensation in accordance with law thereby including the value of land, value of trees and other forest produces, solatium and interest @ 12% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of illegal occupation, by contending, inter alia, that the legitimate rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India have been deprived of by the authority concerned/respondents without any justification.

(2.) The facts of the present case in a short compass may be summed up as follows : These two writ petitioners are the permanent residents of Samanda in the district of East Garo Hills, Meghalaya and are the joint Nokmas of Samandagiri Akhing land (hereinafter referred to as "the Akhing land"), and in this writ petition they are represented by their Attorney Sri Helton N.Marak. On 22.7.1981, the petitioners filed a joint petition before the Executive member in-charge, Revenue, Garo Hills District Council, (for short, "GHDC"), Tura, wherein it was stated that the State Forest Department encroached upon a vast area of Akhing Land without their consent for which they raised objection regarding illegal occupation of the petitioners' Akhing land by the State Forest Department thereby seeking for spot enquiry in presence of both the parties so that the possession of their Akhing land could be restored. The said joint petition was registered and numbered as Case No. GDC-Rev. No. 6/A/C of 1981-82, and notice was issued to the Forest Department by the Executive Member of the GHDC, and thereafter the Forest Department filed objection before the District Magistrate, West Garo Hills, Tura, wherein the Forest Department stated that the Executive Member of the GHDC, had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute as the Forest Department was not belonging to Schedule Tribe. However, the Executive Member made a thorough enquiry into the matter and made spot verification in presence of both the parties and passed a related judgment dated 28.4.1983 thereby directing that the boundary between the Akhing land and Rongrenggiri Reserved Forest be demarcated by the Deputy Commissioner concerned, and while doing so he would take the aid of such officer(s) as he thought necessary to carry out the job in question, and demarcation be made in presence of both sides and the GHDC would also be associated while undertaking the work with the further direction to maintain status quo with regard to possession of the land as existed on that day till boundary as aforesaid was demarcated. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the Deputy Commissioner, East Garo Hills for demarcation of the boundary and to maintain status quo regarding possession of the land in question in terms of the said judgment and order dated 19.8.1988 passed in Civil Rule No.723/1983 (Misc.Case No.310/1983) filed by the State Forest Department before this Court, but in spite of a specific order, some persons were removing trees and other forest produces from the disputed area, and, accordingly, the petitioners approached the Deputy Commissioner concerned as well as the Divisional Forest Officer, respondent herein, to stop removal of trees, timber and other forest produces by those persons, and to maintain status quo in terms of the related order of this court dated 19.8.1988. The concerned Assistant Settlement Officer addressed a letter dated 27.5.1993 to the Deputy Commissioner concerned, respondent herein, to take necessary steps regarding the objection raised by the writ petitioners and the petitioners also brought the matter to the notice of the GHDC regarding a Sale Notice inviting tenders issued by the Forest Department for operation and removal of trees, timber, etc. from the disputed area, and in view of the above position, the said Senior Assistant Settlement Officer by his letter dated 16.8.1993 also requested the Deputy Commissioner to instruct and ask the Forest Department to restrain from such activities till the process of demarcation was completed in all respects in terms of the related order passed by this Court, but inspite of all these efforts, demarcation of the land in question was not done, and, on the other hand, the State Forest Department were allowing persons to remove the forest produces from the disputed area. Being aggrieved by such action of the State Forest Department, the petitioners moved a writ petition, being Civil Rule No. 2212/1993 before this Court, and during the pendency of the said Civil Rule, a Miscellaneous application was also filed seeking relief for demarcation of boundary of the land in question by the Survey of India within a time-bound period, and this court by order dated 22.8.1994 disposed of the Miscellaneous application directing the Deputy Commissioner, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar, to complete the boundary demarcation by the Survey of India by 30.11.1994. Thereafter, the Survey of India verified and relaid the boundary of the entire Rongrenggiri Reserved Forest and submitted its report in May, 1996, and its clarification in October, 1996, and on receipt of the case records along with the report, the Deputy Commissioner, East Garo Hills District passed an order dated 13.12.1996 wherein it was observed that the boundary of the entire Rongrenggiri Reserved Forest was authentically relaid by the Survey of India and now the alignment of boundary on the disputed segment could be demarcated by the Deputy Commissioner for which 14.1.1997 was fixed thus calling all the parties concerned and the survey party of the Survey of India, and on 9.4.197, the Survey of India party showed the boundary alignment as demarcated by them to the parties concerned in the disputed segment between Samandagiri Akhing land and Rongrenggiri Reserved Forest from boundary pillar No.1 to boundary pillar No. 7 in presence of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Garo Hills and the said Additional Deputy Commissioner, who was also the supervisory officer, submitted a report which showed that an area covering 4013 B. 01 K. 14 L. (536.6 hectres) was decided to be the integral part of Samandagiri Akhing land and, thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, East Garo Hills District by an order dated 23.4.1997 directed the authority concerned to submit a copy of the said order and report to the Registrar of this court in Guwahati for information and the copy of the same was also sent to the parties concerned. It may be noted here that since the petitioners submitted before this Court that they got all the reliefs claimed in the writ petition, this court by order dated 27.11.1997 disposed of the said Civil Rule No. 2212/1993 and Contempt Petition, being COP(C) No. 560/1995 with the specific order and observation that if anything was left to be done, the petitioner may approach the authority in terms of the order of the Deputy Commissioner. In view of the observation made by this court under the related order dated 27.11.1997, mentioned above, these writ petitioners filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, East Garo Hills District for physically handing over of the Akhing land and properties in question obtained after demarcation of the boundary in between Samandagiri Akhing land and Rongrenggiri Reserved Forest by putting permanent pillars along the demarcated boundary, and also for making adequate payment of compensation in favour of the petitioners on account of unauthorised possession of the Akhing land by the State Forest Department thereby depriving the petitioners' right of cultivation, gardening, establishment of houses, etc. On the basis of the said application dated 21.7.2000, the Deputy Commissioner, East Garo Hills District addressed a letter dated 31.7.2000 to the petitioners wherein the former informed the petitioners that "Authority" concerned as referred by this court in the aforesaid Civil Rule No. 2212/1993 was the District Forest Officer (Territorial), Tura, under whose jurisdiction the disputed reserved forest area fell, and regards survey, demarcation and showing of boundary alignment of both the parties were concerned, the Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Garo Hills, Tura, was the appropriate "Authority" and therefore, the petitioners were requested to approach the said Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Garo Hills, Tura. The petitioners, thereafter, approached the said Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Garo Hills, Tura stating that the Forest Department encroached upon the Akhing land and the same was kept under their unauthorised occupation for a long time. The Deputy Commissioner, East Garo Hills District then addressed a letter dated 31.10.2000 to the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Revenue Department seeking instruction/suggestions with regard to the ultimatum issued by the Nokmas of Samandagiri Akhing land. According to the petitioners, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Meghalaya, Shillong, addressed a letter bearing No. MFG.13/62 dated 22.11.2000 to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Forest and Environment Department in respect of the ultimatum issued by the Nokmas of the Samandagiri Akhing to take physical possession of a portion of Rongrenggiri Reserved Forest in pursuance of relaying of the boundary by the Survey of India, and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Meghalaya, Shillong, vide office letter dated MFG.13/ 62 dated 20.12.2000 informed the Divisional Forest Officer, Garo Hills Division, Tura that on receipt of the Government advice, the same would be conveyed to him. When the respondents/ authority concerned did not hand over the physical possession of the Akhing land, the petitioners served a legal notice dated 8.2.2001 to the respondents concerned, but despite service of such legal notice, the respondent-authorities paid no heed too, and having no alternative, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Mr. V.K. Jindal, learned Sr. counsel, assisted by Mr. L.Lyngdoh and Ms.N. Singhania, appearing for the petitioners, supporting the case of the petitioners, submitted that despite existence of clear evidence that a vast area of Akhing land had been encroached by the State Forest Department without the consent of the Nokmas of the Akhing land as highlighted by the petitioners in their writ petition and even after the proper demarcation of the said Akhing land by the competent authorities in accordance with the directives of this court in the related cases, namely, Civil Rule No.723/1983 and Civil Rule No. 2212/1993 as well as COP(C) No. 560/1995, the respondent-authorities neither handed over the physical possession of the Akhing land in question to the petitioners nor did the respondent-authorities take steps for payment of due compensation to the petitioners for long occupation of the Akhing land by the respondent-State Forest Department nor acquired the said Akhing land in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. It is a great inhuman treatment on the part of the authorities concerned in depriving the legitimate right of the poor people residing in Samandagiri Akhing land, Mr. Jindal contended. Supporting the case of the petitioners, Mr. Jindal, learned Sr. counsel, relied upon the averments made in the writ petition.