Back
MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.
Jelwis Paslein - Appellant
Versus
Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council - Respondent
WP(C) No. 83/2013
Decided On : 29-10-2014
The court held that the Chief Executive Member, JHADC, while deciding the complaint/petition dated 01.11.2011 filed by the respondents No. 6 & 7 on transfer was not exercising the appellate or revisional authority of the order of the Revenue Officer, JHADC and was exercising the original jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer, JHADC to whom the said complaint/petition dated 01.11.2011 had been filed. The Revenue Officer, JHADC has no power for review and also no materials had been made out in the complaint/petition dated 01.11.2011 filed by the respondents No. 6 & 7 for reviewing the earlier order of the Revenue Officer, JHADC dated 04.03.2010 for issuing Land Holding Certificate No. 37 of 2010 in favour of the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner is the owner in possession of a plot of land known as "Lum Khadser", which is situated at Samasi Village, Sumer Patorship, Elaka Raliang Jaintia Hills District, covered by Land Holding Certificate No. 37 of 2010. The respondents No. 6 & 7, who are well aware of the fact that the said land "Lum Khadser" under Land Holding Certificate No. 37 of 2010 is the private land of the petitioner and has been in continuous possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the petitioner's family till date, started illegally claiming that the said land is a community land/forest land belonging to their village Mynthning Village, Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Chief Executive Member, JHADC, while deciding the complaint/petition dated 01.11.2011 filed by the respondents No. 6 & 7 on transfer was not exercising the appellate or revisional authority of the order of the Revenue Officer, JHADC and was exercising the original jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer, JHADC to whom the said complaint/petition dated 01.11.2011 had been filed. The Revenue Officer, JHADC has no power for review and also no materials had been made out in the complaint/petition dated 01.11.2011 filed by the respondents No. 6 & 7 for reviewing the earlier order of the Revenue Officer, JHADC dated 04.03.2010 for issuing Land Holding Certificate No. 37 of 2010 in favour of the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether the Chief Executive Member, JHADC, had the jurisdiction to review the order of the Revenue Officer, JHADC dated 04.03.2010 for issuing Land Holding Certificate No. 37 of 2010 in favour of the petitioner? 2. Whether the Chief Executive Member, JHADC, while deciding the complaint/petition dated 01.11.2011 filed by the respondents No. 6 & 7 on transfer was exercising the appellate or revisional authority of the order of the Revenue Officer, JHADC?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Revenue Officer, JHADC has no power for review and also no materials had been made out in the complaint/petition dated 01.11.2011 filed by the respondents No. 6 & 7 for reviewing the earlier order of the Revenue Officer, JHADC dated 04.03.2010 for issuing Land Holding Certificate No. 37 of 2010 in favour of the petitioner. 2. The court held that the Chief Executive Member, JHADC, while deciding the complaint/petition dated 01.11.2011 filed by the respondents No. 6 & 7 on transfer was not exercising the appellate or revisional authority of the order of the Revenue Officer, JHADC and was exercising the original jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer, JHADC to whom the said complaint/petition dated 01.11.2011 had been filed.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order dated 18.03.2013 passed in JHADC/REV/MRC/30/2011 and imposed a cost of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three thousand) only to the respondents No. 6 & 7 for approaching the authorities in the manner mentioned in the aforesaid paras for shamelessly resorting to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals by concealment of fact.
Judgment
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.1. By this writ petition, the writ petitioner in whose favour the Revenue Officer, Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council (for short 'JHADC'), Jowai issued the Land Holding Certificate No. 37 of 2010 Elaka Raliang, Sumer Patorship along with a sketch map is challenging the impugned order dated 18.03.2013 passed by the Chief Executive Member, JHADC, Jowai to whom the case being No. JHADC/REV/MRC/30/2011, had been transferred for deciding the case exercising the original jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer, JHADC and under the impugned order dated 18.03.2013 Land Holding Certificate No. 37 of 2010 Elaka Raliang, Sumer Patorship dated 04.03.2010 had been cancelled and directed the Revenue Officer, JHADC, Jowai to proceed with the process for granting of LHC on the application dated 11.12.2009 of Shri. Jelwis Paslein (writ petitioner) and to complete the process inclusive survey within a period not later than six months from the date of the order.
2. Heard Mr. B Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. HS Thangkhiew, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. PN Nongbri, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1-4, Mr. KS Kynjing, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Suna, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 and Dr. ODV Ladia, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P Yobin, learned counsel for the respondents No. 6 & 7.
3. Factual Matrix:-The case of the petitioner leading to the filing of the present writ petition, sufficient for deciding the matter in issue in the present writ petition, is briefly noted. The petitioner is the owner in possession of a plot of land known as "Lum Khadser", which is situated at Samasi Village, Sumer Patorship, Elaka Raliang Jaintia Hills District, covered by Land Holding Certificate No. 37 of 2010. The petitioner is in continuous and peaceful possession of the said land and all along have been working over the same all these years without any disturbance from any quarter. The said land i.e. the land covered by the Land Holding Certificate No. 37 of 2010 belongs to his family and during the lifetime of his parents, the same was looked after and managed by his parents and after the death of his parents, the said land is looked after and managed by the petitioner. The said land of the petitioner is an orchard (Orange and Banana Garden) and the parents of the petitioner had also planted orange, banana, various fruits, trees, bamboo etc. in the said land. After the death of his parents, on 11.12.2009 applied for Land Holding Certificate for the said land called "Lum Khadser" on the recommendation of the Acting Pator of Samasi Patorship to the Revenue Officer, JHADC, Jowai. On receipt of the said application for Land Holding Certificate, the Revenue Officer, JHADC, Jowai issued notice dated 17.12.2009 mentioning the particulars of the said land i.e. boundary of "Lum Khadser" inviting any claim or objection from any person within 7 (seven) days from the date of issue of the notice. After issuing the said notice dated 17.12.2009 inviting any claim or objection from any person to the said application of the petitioner for issuing Land Holding Certificate, the authorities of the JHADC, Jowai more particularly, the Revenue Officer, JHADC, Jowai had carried out the inspection and survey of the said land on 23.12.2009 and report was duly submitted by the enquiry officer on 09.01.2010. After, receiving the said enquiry report dated 09.01.2010, the respondent No. 5 Revenue Officer, JHADC, Jowai again issued notice on 28.01.2010 to all concerned calling for objection, if any, within 17.02.2010 against the issuance of the Land Holding Certificate to the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that before issuing the Land Holding Certificate by the respondent No. 5 Revenue Officer, all the formalities and procedures as required under the relevant law had been followed and only thereafter, the Land Holding Certificate No. 37 of 2010 dated 04.03.2010 Sama
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
