IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (SHILLONG BENCH)
Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J.
Pongdo Marak & Ors. – Appellants
Vs.
State of Meghalaya & Ors. – Respondent
WP(C) Nos. 250 (SH), 251 (SH) of 2009 & 353 (SH) of 2009
Decided On: 10.09.2012
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 300A – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 145 and 146 - Garo Hills Autonomous District Validating Act, 1958 - Section 11 - Disputed Boundary – Alleged Breach of Contract - At desire of all learned counsel appearing for rival parties this batch of three writ petitions were for sake of convenience jointly heard and are now being disposed of by this common judgment I shall first deal with WP which has a chequered history - Dispute is about boundary on one hand and Reserve Forest of Government of Meghalaya on other - It may be noted that in Misc Case arising out of Civil Rule wherein petitioner was one of parties on application filed by State of Meghalaya against Executive Member In-Charge Revenue District Council this Court by order passed following order over disputed boundary - Dispute in this petition is relatable to boundary and Reserve Forest As fairly agreed to by learned counsel of all sides we dispose of application by stating that aforesaid boundary shall be demarcated by Deputy Commissioner of concerned district While doing so Deputy Commissioner would take aid would take aid of such officer he would think necessary to carry out job in question - This would be done in presence of both sides - District Council shall also be associated while undertaking work - Held, Therefore not maintainable due to disputed question of facts - This reminds me of observations of Apex Court in State of Bihar Vs Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd - In our view it is apparent that order passed by High Court is on face of it illegal and erroneous - It is true that many matters could be decided after referring to contentions raised in affidavits and counter-affidavits but that would hardly be a ground for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction in case of alleged breach of contract - Whether alleged non-supply of road permits by appellants would justify breach of contract by respondent would depend upon facts and evidence and is not required to be decided or dealt with in a writ petition - Such a seriously disputed questions or rival claims of parties with regard to breach of contract are to be investigated and determined on basis of evidence which may be led by parties in a properly instituted civil suit rather than by a Court exercising prerogative of issuing writs - Petition is dismissed.
Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J.
1. At the desire of all the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties, this batch of three writ petitions were, for the sake of convenience, jointly heard, and are now being disposed of by this common judgment I shall first deal with WP(C) No. 353(SH) of 2009, which has a chequered history. In this writ petition, the petitioner is the Nokma of Doracha Akhing, East Garo Hills District. The dispute is about the boundary between Depa Doratcha Akhing on the one hand and Chimanagshi Reserve Forest of the Government of Meghalaya on the other. It may be noted that in Misc. Case No. 568 of 1983 arising out of Civil Rule No. 1004 of 1983, wherein the petitioner was one of the parties, on the application filed by the State of Meghalaya against the Executive Member, In-Charge, Revenue, Garo Hills District Council, this Court by the order dated 19.8.1988 passed the following order over the disputed boundary:
Date 19.8.88
ORDER
The dispute in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is relatable to the boundary between Depa Doracha Akhing No. 53 and Chimbangshi Reserve Forest As fairly agreed to by learned counsel of all sides we dispose of the application by stating that the aforesaid boundary shall be demarcated by the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district While doing so the Deputy Commissioner would take the aid would take the aid of such officer(s) he would think necessary to carry out the job in question. This would be done in presence of both the sides. The Garo Hills District Council shall also be associated while undertaking the work.
Till the boundary is demarcated as above, status quo regarding possession of the land as existing today shall be maintained.
Sd/-
S.P. Rajkhowa
Judge
Sd/-
B.L. Hansaria
Judge
On 9.6.89, this Court in the connected Misc. Case No. 1099/88 passed another related order in the following manner:
9.6.89.
ORDER
The civil rule 1099/83 has been disposed of by this Court on 19.8.88. The Deputy Commissioner has demarcated the Boundary in pursuance of the said order. Now the petitioner prays for handing over physical possession as per the demarcation made on 29.3.89/31.3.89. Heard learned Counsel Mr. S.K. Sen on behalf of the petitioner.
It is directed that the Deputy Commissioner, Williamnagar shall depute an officer to hand over physical possession of the encroach land of which the demarcation has been made on 29th and 31st March 89 under the direction of this Court's order dated 19.8.88.
Let the possession be made over within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
The Misc. Case is disposed of with the above order. Intimate Deputy Commissioner, Williamnagar.
Sd/-
S. Haque
Sd/-
H.K. Serna
Judge.
2. On 18.9.89, yet another order was passed by this Court in the connected Misc. Case No. 1099 of 1988, which reads thus:
Date
18.9.89
ORDER
An order was passed on 18.08.89 to demarcate the boundary between Chinshangshi Reserved Forest and Depa Darocha Akhing No. 53. Sri Sen states that pursuant to this order some demarcation was done on 31.3.1989 and 1.4.89. In support of the submission, the learned counsel has produced a sketch map and also states that the Field Measurement Book would bear his submission. It, however, seems that this demarcation work was undertaken by Assistant Enforcement Inspector and some other officers of the Deputy Commissioner's Officer under the supervision of the Additional Deputy Commissioner. But then the Additional Deputy Commissioner himself is not very satisfied with the aforesaid demarcation work. It has, therefore, become necessary to properly demarcate the aforesaid two lands under the supervision of the Director of Survey, Government of Meghalaya.
Let the Director of Survey, therefore, undertake the work, and if during the course of survey, it would be found that the survey undertaken earlier portrays the correct picture and has been duly undertaken, the Director would survey, otherwise a fresh survey would be done in the presence o
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.