MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.
Niva Marak - Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya - Respondent
WP(C) No. 373/2013
Decided On : 24-07-2014
Public Premises - Land Dispute - Meghalaya Public Premises (Evictions of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1980 - Section 2(f), Section 3(1), Section 4(1) - The court directed the Deputy Commissioner to take appropriate steps for evicting the petitioners in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the said Act of 1980, ensuring the petitioners are not evicted without a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners received a notice to vacate land for construction of a sewage disposal tank for a hospital. They claimed rights to the land based on customary practices and an undated allotment/certificate.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the Deputy Commissioner to evict the petitioners in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Meghalaya Public Premises (Evictions of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1980.
Issues: Dispute over land occupancy rights, competence of the authority issuing eviction notice, compliance with the Meghalaya Public Premises Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the procedures prescribed in the Meghalaya Public Premises Act should be followed for evicting the petitioners.
Final Decision: The court directed the Deputy Commissioner to evict the petitioners in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the said Act of 1980, ensuring the petitioners are not evicted without a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Judgment
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.1. Heard Ms. S.G. Momin, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned Sr. GA assisted by Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. FACTUAL BACKGROUND:-The petitioners had received an impugned Notice dated 06.12.2013 issued by the Superintendent Tura Civil Hospital, West Garo Hills, Tura asking the petitioners to dismantle their houses and vacate the land occupied by them as the land is required for construction of a sewage disposal tank for the Hospital in the interest of public health within a period of 14 (fourteen) days from the date of issue of the said notice. Being aggrieved by this notice, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.
3. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioners are residing for generations by constructing their houses in the land-in-question. It is also further stated that as per the customary practices of Garo people, lands are divided spatially, which are known as Akhing. The Nokma being the manager of the Akhing, he manages and allots plots of lands to the residents residing within the Akhing. The said right of the Nokma is also recognized by the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council which is a creation of Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India. The rights of the petitioners to the land-in-question, where the petitioners alleged to have been constructed their houses and resided therein for generations are based on the allotment/certificate issued by one Smti. Enilla Ch. Marak, Nokma. It is also the further case of the petitioners that the said land is a part of the Akhing and accordingly, Smti. Enilla Ch. Marak being the Nokma of the said Akhing issued the said allotment/certificate order. Copy of the said allotment/certificate order is annexed at Annexure-I to the writ petition. On perusal of the Annexure-1 to the writ petition, it is clear that the said allotment/certificate is an undated one.
4. The further case of the petitioners in the writ petition for challenging the said impugned notice dated 06.12.2013 was that the Superintendent Tura Civil Hospital, West Garo Hills, Tura is not the competent authority for issuing the impugned Notice dated 06.12.2013 asking the petitioners to vacate the said land. For evicting the petitioners from the said land-in-question, the respondents have to follow the procedures prescribed for eviction under the "Meghalaya Public Premises (Evictions of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1980 (for short 'the said Act of 1980').
5. The State respondents had filed their affidavit-in-opposition wherein, it is clearly stated that the petitioners are the illegal occupants and encroachers of the hospital land settled in favour of the Tura Civil Hospital. Para 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents read as follows:-
5. That in reply to para 2 of the writ petition, the respondent while denying the contention of the petitioners as false and baseless, states that the petitioners are not residing within Danakgre Akhing land of West Garo Hills. They are in fact the illegal occupants and encroachers of Hospital land settled in favour of the Tura Civil Hospital, Tura by the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC). The said land measuring an area of B 142-K 1-L 13, covered by Dag No. 7 of Tura De-reserved Forest was handed over by the GHADC in the month of August 1973 to the then Civil Surgeon of Tura vide Possession Certificate dated August, 1973 for the purpose of construction of 100 bedded Civil Hospital. Subsequently, an additional plot of land measuring an area of B 8-K 2-L 6, covered by Dag No. 18 of Tura De-reserved Forest was also handed over vide letter No. GDC-REV/346/70/128-32 dated 22.4.1977 to the Civil Hospital Tura for use and expansion of the Hospital. Therefore, in total, the Tura Civil Hospital has in its possession 150 Bighas-3 Kattas and 19 Lesas of Tura De-reserved Forest Land. Mention may be made that the aforesaid land had all along been Reserved Fore
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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.