Back
2019 Supreme(Megh) 95
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
S.R. SEN, J.
Amelia Sohliya — Appellant
Versus
State Of Meghalaya And Others — Respondent
Writ Petition (C).No. 238 of 2017
Decided on : 19-02-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. S.C.Chakrawarty, Sr. Adv. with Ms. R.Sumer, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. H. Abraham, Mr. K.Paul, Advocate
The finality of the award made by the Lok Adalat and the bar on reopening the matter; Government's actions regarding encroachment must have a stand in the eye of law
Headnote:
Encroachment - Dispute over land boundary - Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, Section 21(2) - The court discussed the settlement of the matter before the Lok Adalat and the finality of the award made by the Lok Adalat. The issue of encroachment on government land and the contradictory actions of the government were also considered. The court set aside the order directing the petitioner to dismantle the boundary wall.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a citizen of India belonging to the Khasi Tribe of Meghalaya, had a dispute with her neighbor over a portion of her land. The matter was settled in a Lok Adalat, but the neighbor alleged encroachment by the petitioner when she constructed a boundary wall. The government took contradictory actions regarding the encroachment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the matter being settled in the Lok Adalat barred its reopening. The court also questioned the government's contradictory actions regarding the encroachment and set aside the order directing the petitioner to dismantle the boundary wall.
Issues: Dispute over land boundary, settlement in Lok Adalat, alleged encroachment, contradictory actions of the government
Ratio Decidendi: Settlement in Lok Adalat bars reopening of the matter; Government's contradictory actions regarding encroachment have no stand in the eye of law
Final Decision: The petition is allowed, and the order directing the petitioner to dismantle the boundary wall is set aside. Misc. case also stands disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. S.C.Chakrawarty, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. R.Sumer, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. H.Abraham, learned GA on behalf of the respondents No. 1-4 and Mr. K.Paul, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent No. 5.
The petitioners case in a nutshell is that:
"The petitioner is a citizen of India belonging to the Khasi Tribe of Meghalaya who usually and habitually resides at the aforestated address. There was a dispute between the petitioner and her neighbor Smti. Twes Nongsiej regarding a portion of the petitioners land which had been permitted to be used for ingress and egress into the neighbours property, the same led to the institution of the Revenue Case No. L.14/3(6)/2012 between the petitioner and the petitioners said neighbor which was finally decided by the final order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) at Shillong, conveyed by his Letter No. L.14/3(6)2012/18 dated 04.06.2013 to the parties to that dispute. From the said final order in the said Revenue Case it is seen that the Additional Deputy Commissioner had taken note of the fact that the records produced by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Shillong Central Division, Shillong, showed that the disputed portion of the petitioners land included a portion of the road constructed by the Public Works Department during 2007- 2008 and a map was also available with regard thereto but there was no observation or finding to the effect that the Public Works Department had any records to show that that portion of the road was owned by the Public works Department or that the Public Works Department ever made any claim of such ownership. As such the only finding given by the Honourable Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) was that if the entire disputed portion of that road was allowed to be fenced by a boundary wall by the petitioner then the ingress and egress to the said neighbours property would become restricted whereupon a direction was given to maintain status quo. The said final order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) amply clarifies that the records of Public Works Department merely indicate that the said disputed portion of the road was constructed only once by the Public Works Department during the year 2007-2008, that the Public Works Department had no records to show that they were the owners of the said disputed portion of the road and that actually the Public Works Department never even made a claim that they were owners of that road.
Subsequently the matter went on an appeal before the Meghalaya Board of Revenue where a compromise was arrived at in a Lok Adalat which accordingly gave the award as recorded by the order dated 11.12.2014, of the Chairman of the Board.
However, the petitioners said neighbor assailed the said award of the Lok Adalat and the order of the Meghalaya Board of Revenue before Honourable The High Court of Meghalaya by filing the Writ Petition(Civil) No. 1 of 2015 which was finally disposed off by the judgment and order dated 17.03.2017 without interfering with the impugned award and order and the Writ Appeal No. 4 of 2017 assailing that order dated 17.03.2017 was also disposed off by the order dated 18.04.2017 upholding the said order in the writ petition. After Honourable The High Court of Meghalaya gave the said judgments and orders dated 17.03.2017 and 18.04.2017, the petitioner wrote her letter dated 28.04.2017 to the Deputy Commissioner at Shillong on the subject of fencing her said land and property at Dunoon Compound, Kenchs Trace, Shillong informing him about the said award of the Lok Adalat, order of the Board of Revenue and the orders of the Honourable High Court and requested him to allow her to build the fencing wall as per that award and the said orders and also to provide her with security as she would be building the said wall on 01.05.2017 onwards. Only after the sequence of events described hereinabove, did the petitioner constru
