KYNREMRI LYNGDOH Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the writ petition and criminal petition virtually involving the same parties and are inter-connected on material facts were taken up together for hearing and are now being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) COMING to the facts of the writ petition first, the case of the petitioner is that he had purchased a plot of land situate at Mawrie-Madan ling Syiem, Mylliem Syiemship, East Khasi Hills District from one P. Kurkalang by the registered sale deed dated 27. 3. 2006 and also obtained permission from the Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District on 29. 11. 2006 for setting up a petrol pump thereon. Thereafter, he obtained permission from the Revenue Department for leasing the said land in favour of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vide the notification dated 5. 3. 2007 whereafter the lease deed dated 27. 4. 2008 was executed by him in favour of the Corporation. He had earlier obtained No-Objection Certificate (NOC) dated 20. 2. 2006 from the respondent No. 6, who is the Headman of Madan ling Syiem, for setting up the petrol pump as he was under the impression that the plot in question fell within his village. But when he started construction of the petrol pump, the respondent No. 5, who is the Headman of Mawrie village, lodged a verbal complaint before the Mawngap Police Station, which prompted the Executive Magistrate to register C. R. Case No. 21 (A) 2007 and passed the order dated 26. 6. 2007 drawing up proceedings under Sections 107/145 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The In-Charge, Mawngap Police Outpost had, however, reported that the dispute was purely a dispute of civil nature and pertained to a boundary dispute between the villages of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. In the meantime, the petitioner, as a matter of abundant caution, also approached and obtained another NOC from the respondent No. 5 on 23. 6. 2007 for setting up the petrol pump. While the construction of the petrol pump was going on the said plot, the respondent No. 7, claiming to be the clan elder of Kurkalang Kseh clan, instituted Title Suit No. 6 of 2007 against the petitioner before the Subordinate District Council Court for declaration of title, etc. In the connected Misc. Case No. 6 of 2007 filed by the respondent No. 7, the trial Court by the order dated 6. 8. 2007 granted an interim injunction against the petitioner. The matter was taken in appeal by the petitioner before the learned Additional Judge, District Council Court in M. C. A. No. 2 of 2007. Ultimately, in Civil Revision No. 50 (SH) of 2007, this Court by the order dated 24. 8. 2007 remanded the appeal to the appellate court for re-hearing, and the appellate Court thereafter remanded the case to the trial Court for re-hearing of the injunction matter. The respondent No. 7, however, withdrew the suit on 24. 9. 2007.

(3.) THE writ petition and the criminal petition are opposed by the respondents Nos. 2, 5 and 7. These respondents separately filed their respective affidavits-in-opposition in the writ petition. The respondent No. 6 also filed his affidavit-in-opposition. But from the tone and tenor of his affidavit, it is obvious that he supports the case of the petitioner. In his affidavit-in-opposition, the respondent No. 2 maintains that there was likelihood of breach of the peace between the parties and it was with a view to avoid breach of the peace in that area that the In-charge, Mawngap Police Outpost recommended to the Executive Magistrate concerned to draw up proceedings under Section 107/145 Crpc against the both the rival parties. The respondent No. 5 in his affidavit-in-opposition categorically asserts that the petrol pump in question has been constructed at Mawrie village and denies that the same lies within Madan ling Syeim village. According to him, when the petitioner started to construct the petrol pump in the disputed plot without the permission of the Dorbar Shnong, he along with members of his Dorbar approached the petitioner, who produced the NOC issued by the respondent No. 6 whereupon verbal complaint was lodged by him with the police. It was only after the complaint that the petitioner applied for and obtained the NOC dated 23. 6. 2007 from him, but when it was brought to his notice that a civil suit concerning the disputed plot was pending that he revoked the NOC issued to him. It is contended by the answering respondent that the writ petition is not maintainable as it involves serious disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in a summary proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution and that the writ petition questioning the revocation of the NOC on 23. 6. 2007 is also barred by the principle of laches. The respondent No. 5 also maintains therein that the petitioner is further barred from simultaneously prosecuting F. A. O. No. 6 (T) of 2007 before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong and this Court over the same subject-matter. It is thus contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.