The main legal point established in the judgment is the broad interpretation of the term 'transfer' under the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulations) Act, 1971 to include testamentary disposition, and the court's emphasis on upholding the legislative intent to regulate land transfers for the protection of the interests of the Scheduled Tribes in Meghalaya.

T. Vaiphei, J.

1. This batch of 27 writ petitions, which are inter-linked and virtually involving the same parties, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

2. WP (C) Nos. 94 (SH) and 95 (SH) of 2005 were filed by 27 writ petitioners challenging the legality of the notice dated 7.3.2005 issued to each of them by the Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills, Shillong (the respondent No. 2) Under Section 8 of the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulations) Act, 1971 ("the Regulations" for short) requiring them to show cause within 15 days as to why action should not be taken against them for possessing the lands described in the schedule therein without obtaining necessary permission under the provisions of the Regulations and the rules made there under.

3. For proper appreciation of the controversies involved in all the writ petitions, the undisputed facts on record may be noticed at the very outset. The petitioner No. 1 in WP (C) No. 94 (SH) 2005 inherited with his brothers jointly the plot of land measuring 5008 square metres situate at Burnside, Kench's Trace, Rilbong, Shillong, from their deceased father, namely, Raisaheb Shivnath Dutta, who had obtained lease agreement from the Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills, Shillong (the respondent No. 2) in that behalf on 29.8.1931 in accordance with the Assam Land Revenue Regulations, 1881. Upon the death of their father, a fresh lease agreement was executed by the respondent No. 2 on 1.7.1999 for a period of 30 years in their favour. Subsequently, when his two brothers died, the said plot came to be recorded only in the name of the petitioner No. 1. All the remaining 26 petitioners in WP (C) No. 94 (SH) and 95 (SH) of 2005 are admittedly the tenants of the petitioner No. 1. These tenant-petitioners were apparently given Municipal Holdings for enabling them to pay taxes in respect of the plots occupied by each of them. It would appear that in the month of October, 2004, the Shillong Municipal Board cancelled their respective holdings whereupon they instituted civil suits being Title Suit Nos. 115(T), 43(T), 56(T), 39(T), 53(T), 51(T), 37(T), 46(T), 34(T) and 36(T) of 2004 before the learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Shillong challenging the cancellations and managed to obtain interim injunction orders on 18.10.2004 staying the cancellations in the miscellaneous cases filed by them in connection therewith. The said suits are still now pending for adjudication in the trial court. This was followed by the impugned notices (dated 7.3.2005) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills, Shillong Under Section 8 of the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulations) Act, 1971 ("the Act of 1971" for short) to all the writ petitioners except the petitioner No. 1 in WP (C) No. 94 (SH) of 2005 i.e. Subrata Dutta, requiring each of them to show cause within 15 days as to why action should not be taken against them for possessing the said holdings without obtaining necessary permission under the provisions of the Act of 1971 and the rules made thereunder. The said petitioners filed their respective show causes by stating that they had no intention of giving up their tenancy rights over such holdings, which they and their respective families had been occupying for years together and contended therein that such occupation of the holdings by them as the tenants there of under their landlord could not be construed as transfer within the meaning of the provisions of the Act of 1971. In addition to these contentions, the writ petitioners in WP (C) No. 95 (SH) of 2005 also asserted that they inherited their respective holdings from the said Satyabrata Dutta by virtue of the Will dated 26.8.1999 executed by him in their favour. This Court, while issuing notice of motion on 19.4.2005, ordered that the prayer for interim order should be considered on the next date and at the sometime directed that the status quo as on that day be maintained till the next returnable