UNION OF INDIA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legality of the order dated 5. 6. 2006 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong in MCA No. 2 (T) of 2003 directing that the stay order passed by him on 7. 5. 2003 be continued till otherwise decided by a competent court even after his dismissal of the appeal is called into question in this revision petition.

(2.) MR. S. C. Shyam, the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. N. D. Chullai, the learned senior Government Advocate, representing the State of Meghalaya, have been heard at length.

(3.) THE facts material for disposal of the revision petition may be briefly stated at the very outset. The then Imperial Government of a India in the Ministry of Defence was stated to have acquired a plot of land measuring an area of 119. 7399 acres at Kench's Trace, Shillong in three phases between 1928 and 1939. Though the land was surveyed and demarcated by posting pillars on the boundary, no fencing or barricade was erected thereon. According to the petitioner, taking advantage of this situation, a portion of such land measuring 6. 74 acres was encroached upon by the Home Guard Department of the undivided Government of Assam, which established its office complexes on that land and the same continued to be under the unauthorized occupation of the same Department but under the successor Government of Meghalaya. The Army authorities took up the matter with the concerned Department and thereafter a notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 was issued against the Home Guard Department. The Estate Officer, after hearing both the parties, issued the notice under Section 5 of the Act against the respondent for vacation of the said land. The eviction process was, however, kept in abeyance for about 5 years and thereafter the notice dated 25. 1. 2002 under Section 5 of the Act was again issued to the respondent. Challenging the legality of this notice, the respondent filed WP (C) No. 59 (SH) of 2002 before this Court, which disposed of the writ petition on 17. 12. 2002 with the direction that "it will be open to the respondent authorities to complete the proceedings under Section of the Act as initiated by the notice dated 25. 1. 2002 by complying with all the formalities procedural requirements spelt out by the provisions of the Act and till" adjudication is finalized not to interfere with the possession of the writ petitioner over the land". In pursuance of this order, the petitioner herein issued a fresh notice upon the respondent and, after hearing the parties, issued the notice dated 16. 4. 2003 under Section 5 (1) of the Act directing the respondent to vacate the encroached portion of the said defence land. The respondent challenged this notice/order by preferring Civil Appeal No. 2 (T) of 2003 before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong. The petitioner contested the appeal and challenged the very jurisdiction of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner to entertain the appeal under Section 99 (1) of the Act. The learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner by the impugned order dismissed the appeal holding that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, but he also in the same breath directed that the interim order passed by him on 7. 5. 2003 should continue till the matter was decided by a competent court of jurisdiction. It is the latter part of this order, which is under challenge in this revision.