1

Serial No. 01

Regular List

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA

AT SHILLONG

CRP No. 14 of 2018

Date of Decision: 06.08.2021

Smti. Noorjahan Marwein

Vs.

State of Meghalaya & Ors.

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge

Appearance:

For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) :

Mr. K. Ch. Gautam, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)

:

Mr. R. Gurung, GA. (For R 1 & 2)

with Mr. A.H. Kharwanlang, GA.

Mr. P.N. Nongbri, Adv. (For R 3 & 4).

i)

Whether approved for reporting in

Yes/No

Law journals etc.

ii)

Whether approved for publication

in press:

Yes/No

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

1.

This application under Article 227, has been filed challenging the

order dated 04.07.2018 passed by the Meghalaya Board of Revenue,

Shillong in Revenue Appeal No. MBR/RA/3/2013, whereby it has been

held that the Appeal filed by the respondent No. 3 is maintainable under

Section 8 of the Meghalaya Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised

Occupants) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act’). The main

ground as set out by the petitioner to substantiate her case is that, as the

2

petitioner was not found to be an unauthorised occupant by the Revenue

Authority, that is the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) by order

dated 21.06.2013, the said order had attained finality in terms of Section 9

of the Act. Further point that has been raised is that, an appeal would lie

only in respect of an order of eviction passed under Section 4 of the Act or

an order under Section 6 of the Act. It is contended therefore by the

petitioner that, since the order appealed against by the respondent before the

Court of Revenue is not against an order of eviction, such appeal is not

provided in law and as such, the impugned order is beyond the jurisdiction

of the Revenue Board and liable to be declared as such.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Mr. K. Ch. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was subjected to proceedings

under the Meghalaya Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised

Occupants) Act, 1980 whereby eviction was sought, under Section 3 of the

Act, of a portion of land under her occupation on the ground that the same

belonged to the respondent Municipal Board. Learned counsel submits that

these proceedings culminated in the order dated 21.06.2013, whereby the

Learned Additional Deputy Commissioner Revenue, East Khasi Hills

District disposed of the case in favour of the petitioner. He further submitted

that an Appeal was then preferred by the respondent under Section 8(1) of

the Act, and the petitioner by way of a preliminary objection, challenged

the maintainability of the appeal for the reason that a statutory appeal is

available only against the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, against

3

orders made under Section 4 or Section 6 of the Act for eviction of a person

in unauthorised occupation of public premises and; for order of assessment

and payment of arrears of rent payable in respect of public premises.

4.

Learned counsel submits that the Board of Revenue, however by

the impugned order held that the appeal was maintainable and accordingly

had admitted the same for hearing on merits, which has compelled the

petitioner to come before this Court by invoking Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, questioning the jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue,

to entertain the appeal. Learned counsel submits that grave illegality has

been committed by the learned Board of Revenue, inasmuch as, it had failed

to appreciate that an appeal under Section 8 of the Act can only be preferred

in respect of public premises under Section 4 and 6 of the Act. Learned

counsel has then invited the attention of the Court to the expression ‘public

premises’ as defined in Section 2(f) of the Act, which he