2000 Supreme(Gau) 304
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
D. BISWAS, J.
Holy Mother of Aurobindo Ashram of Pondicherry -Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya and others -Respondent
Civil Rule No. 113 (SH) of 1998
Decided On : 04-10-2000
V.K. Jindal, B.P. Marngar, Govt. Adv. Meghalaya, H.S. Thayakhiew, G. Bhattacharjee
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, particularly Sections 43-46, in determining the rightful settlement and renewal of the lease, and the importance of the boundary and lease deed in such determinations.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Land Dispute - Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, Sections 43-46 - The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned orders and directing the state to issue formal orders of renewal as per the decision communicated in 1976. Alternatively, the state may offer the settlement to the writ petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Sections 43-46 of the Regulation. The possession of the private respondents over a portion of the land shall not be disturbed.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition was filed for quashing a government memo and an order, and for further direction to issue orders for renewal of a lease. The disputed land was originally leased out in 1865, and the petitioner had been in peaceful possession since a Deed of Gift in 1955. The government settled a plot of land from within the area of the disputed land with other associations, leading to a legal dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the government's actions in settling the land with other associations were in violation of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned orders and directing the state to issue formal orders of renewal as per the decision communicated in 1976. Alternatively, the state may offer the settlement to the writ petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Sections 43-46 of the Regulation. The possession of the private respondents over a portion of the land shall not be disturbed.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the government's settlement of the disputed land with other associations, the rightful possession and renewal of the lease by the writ petitioner, and the applicability of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, particularly Sections 43-46, to determine the rightful settlement and renewal of the lease. The court emphasized the importance of the boundary and lease deed in determining the intended settlement of the land, and the need for compliance with the Regulation in any action related to the land.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned orders and directing the state to issue formal orders of renewal as per the decision communicated in 1976. Alternatively, the state may offer the settlement to the writ petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Sections 43-46 of the Regulation. The possession of the private respondents over a portion of the land shall not be disturbed.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issue of an appropriate writ for quashing and seting aside the Government Memo No. RD/41/72/70-A dated 28-9-1976 and the order dated 20-7-1998 passed by the Respondent No. 3 and for further direction to the respondents to issue orders for renewal of the lease as communicated by them vide their letter dated 2nd June, 1976 without altering modifying or alienating the boundaries of the aforesaid plot in any manner.
2. While issuing Rule, this Court by order dated 14-9-1998 directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the disputed land. this order still holds the field since no objection was raised on behalf of the respondents.
3. For convenience, I would like to clear the facts first which eventually culminated in this writ petition.
4. This petition has been filed by the Holy Mother of Aurobindo Ashram of Pondicherry represented by Shri Aurobindo Institute of Indian Culture, Shillong. The plot of lease hold in dispute is known as Morven Estate situated behind the Raj Bhawan at Shillong and appertains to Revenue Plot No. 5 and 5A. The plot No. 5 was originally leased out to one Mr. H.M. Hadow for a period of 99 years with effect from 1-9-1865 by a lease agreement executed on 8-3-1875. There has been change of owner during the course of time and ultimately Mr. S.N. Maitra became the exclusive owner thereof in the year 1949. Mr. Maitra was a Philantropist from Calcutta. He gifted away the entire property to the Holy Mother of Sri Aurobindo Ashram, Pondicherry on 20-4-1955 by a Deed of Gift. Next year, the land was mutated in the name of the writ petitioner vide orders passed in Mutation case No. 3/55-56 of 1955. Since the execution of the Deed of Gift, the writ petitioner have been in peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the same without any hindrance from any quarter. The original Deed of Lease and the Mutation records would show that the plot No. 5 is bounded in the North. East and South by drains and in the West by Government Road. During the Survey of Europen Ward, Shillong in 1963-64, this plot of land was recorded as Plot No. 24 reflecting the above boundaries. On expiry of the period of lease, an application was submitted along with the original patta before the Deputy Commissioner of erstwhile United Khasi and Jantia Hills District, Shillong on 3-8-1967 for renewal of the lease. The Government of Meghalaya vide letter dated 2-1-1976 conveyed their decision to renew the lease for 75 years from the date of expiry. But till today no formal orders have been passed. On the other hand, in the same year a notification was published in the paper on 28-9-1976 to the effect that the Government of Meghalaya settled a plot of land from within the area of Plot No. 5 (Morven Estate) with Young Men Christians Association and Young Women Christians Association. The petitioner came to know about this illegal settlement in the year 1995 and immediately filed representation on various dates in the year between1995 to 1998. The land in question has always been in possession and control of the writ petitioner. After constitution of Sri Aurobindo Institute of Indian Culture, Shillong, as per Memorandum of Understanding dated 18-4-1995, the Institute took up the management of the property of the Ashram and came to know about the illegal settlement. It has been further contended that, on request by the Young Men Christians Association, a small portion of the Ashrams land was allowed to be used by them on consideration of their objectives. Even by that time, the Institute was not in the know of the illegal settlement made by the Government.
5. Affidavits have been filed on behalf of Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 jointly, and 5 and 6 separately. In the affidavit of Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 it has been submitted that in plot No. 5 the land measuring 2 acres known as Moreven Estate and the land in plot No. 5A where mutated in the name of the Holy Mother o