State of Meghalaya vs Albert Steven Diengdoh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Megh) 55

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
W. DIENGDOH, J.
State of Meghalaya - Petitioner
Versus
Shri. Albert Steven Diengdoh & Ors. - Respondents
CRP No. 10 of 2023
Decided On : 26-07-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Sahay, GA. With Mr. J.N. Rynjah, GA, Ms. A. Thungwa, GA.
For the Respondent: Mr. N. Khera, Mr. P. Nongbri, Ms. A.P. Kharsahnoh, Mr. A.H. Kharwanlang, Addl. Sr. GA, Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI with Ms. A. Pradhan.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 80(1) and 80(2) - Application for leave to file suit against Government without notice - The court can allow a waiver of notice under Section 80(1) if urgency is demonstrated, but must assess urgency based on the plaint; failure to do so renders the suit barred by law - Previous applications for mining rights raised disputes of overlapping lease claims between parties that led to the appellant seeking injunctive relief. - The impugned order allowing leave was upheld; no material irregularity observed. (Paras 1-44)

(B) Urgency - The court emphasized that urgency must be adequately demonstrated when seeking a waiver of notice under Section 80(2); failure to establish this may invalidate the suit. (Paras 8, 36, 41)

(C) Legal Parameters - Courts must adhere to procedural law but may adopt a liberal approach in unique circumstances to ensure justice is served. (Paras 41, 42)

Table of Content
1. application process under cpc (Para 1 , 2)
2. background of the land lease dispute (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8)
3. arguments regarding urgency and compliance (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. counterarguments on suit's non-maintainability (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. mandatory notice provisions under cpc (Para 26 , 27 , 28)
6. interpretation of urgency for leave (Para 29 , 32 , 34)
7. court's rationale for allowing suit without notice (Para 39 , 40 , 41)
8. final ruling on the application (Para 42 , 43 , 44)

JUDGMENT :

W. Diengdoh, J.

1. This is an application under section 115 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 preferred by the Petitioner/State of Meghalaya in the Department of Mining and Geology, Shillong directed against an order dated 12.06.2023 passed by the Assistant Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) (Sic Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner), South West Khasi Hills District, Mawkyrwat, whereby leave under section 80 (2) CPC was granted to the respondent No. 1/Plaintiff to institute a Title Suit against the Government without serving any Notice upon it as required by sub-section 1 of section 80 CPC.

2. Heard Mr. S. Sahay, learned GA who has, at the outset led this Court to the provision of sub-section 2 of section 80 CPC and has submitted that the requirement of the provision is that the court must assess from the plaint that there are adequate grounds to disclose an urgency that if a notice of sixty days is issued to the Government, then the subject matter of the suit may become infructuous or that there may occur grave and irreparable harm to the plaintiff. However, if the court is satisfied, after hearing the parties that no urgent or immediate relief need to be granted in the suit, the plaint is returned to the plaintiff to present the same after complying with the provision of sub-section (1), which is to wait for the completion of sixty days before filing the suit.

3. In the plaint, the prayer at (vi) therein would indicate that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 has sought for a permanent injunction against the Government authorities restraining it from processing any application filed by the private defendant/respondent No. 2 herein for mining lease over the suit land.

4. Going into the background of the case between the parties, the learned GA has submitted that the respondent No.1/plaintiff is purportedly the lease holder of the land of about 3 kilometers of the Hahshah Clan having executed a Lease Deed dated 19.08.2014. The respondent No. 2 is also a lease holder of land measuring about 1 km, which land also belongs to the Hahshah clan by virtue of lease agreement dated 16.06.2020.

5. That the respondent No. 1, in the year 2021 had applied for Non-Forest Land Certificate for the purpose of mining activities within his said lease land. However, the competent authority, that is, the Divisional Forest Officer, West and South West Khasi Hills District, vide letter dated 21.09.2022 rejected the said application, apparently on the ground that a portion of the land vide the lease deed dated 16.06.2020 overlapped with the land of the respondent No. 1 as a result of which no steps could be taken by the DFO for processing of the said application for forest clearance until the dispute is resolved.

6. The respondent No. 1 in response to this, has preferred a writ petition before this Court which was disposed of as non-maintainable vide order dated 18.05.2023. However, this Court has cause status quo to be maintained by the parties for a period of three weeks to enable the respondent No. 1/petitioner to file an appropriate application before the competent civil court.

7. The respondent No. 1 as plaintiff then filed a Title Suit before the court of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, South-West Khasi Hills, Mawkyrwat. Along with the said suit, an application under section 80 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was filed by the respondent No. 1/ plaintiff/Applicant seeking leave of the court to waive the proce