High Court of Meghalaya
Philamon Mawrie vs . Laitumkhrah Dorbar Shnong, ... on 15 February, 2024
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
Serial No.07
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
W.A.No.2/2024 & W.P.(C) No.406 of 2023
Date of Order: 15.02.2024
(W.A.No.2/2024)
Philamon Mawrie Vs. Laitumkhrah Dorbar Shnong, represented
by Chairman/Rangbah Shnong
(W.P.(C) No.406 of 2023)
Laitumkhrah Dorbar Shnong, represented
by Chairman/Rangbah Shnong Vs. State of Meghalaya & ors
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Vaidyanathan, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Appellant : Mr. V.G.K. Kynta, Sr.Adv with
Mr. H. Wanshong, Adv
For the Respondents : Mr. N. Syngkon, Adv with
Ms. L. Phanjom, Adv
Mr. S. Sen, Sr.GA
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes
JUDGMENT
(Made by Hon'ble, the Chief Justice)
The present Writ Appeal has been filed against the interim
order dated 20.12.2023 of the learned Single Judge wherein, besides
holding that as per the last order of the Division Bench, there should be
no hindrance to use the ground for public purpose and also permission to
be obtained for holding the odd fair, it has been held as under:
"6. In this view of the matter, as the usage of the
ground is in public interest and the interest of the
community as a whole, it is directed that respondent No.2
while considering any prayer for grant of permission, is to
take into account that there are no orders operating
presently in the Title Suit that prevents or bars of holding
of any such programme. The decision if any, for grant of
permission, is to be taken on its own appreciation on a
case to case basis."
Being aggrieved by the said interim order, the present appeal has been
preferred.
2. Though the Writ Appeal is directed against the interim
order, we are of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the
Writ Petition pending and therefore, in the interest of justice, we have
taken up both the Writ Appeal and Writ Petition together so as to give
quietus to the issue. Since the Writ Petition is not listed before us today,
Registry shall prepare a supplementary list for the purpose of listing the
Writ Petition before us today itself.
3. The minimum facts that are required for the purpose of
understanding the case are that the Writ Petitioner was denied
permission by R2 and R3 therein to use Madan Iewrynghep / Suit
Property based on a report of the Superintendent of Police, East Khasi
Hills District, Meghalaya and therefore, a Writ Petition was filed, in
which the afore-stated interim order was obtained, against which, the
Appellant, who has been impleaded as a Third Party in the Writ is before
this Court, stating that this is the second round of litigation over the
usage of the ground and the order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the Civil
Court has been grossly misinterpreted by the Writ Petitioner so as to
obtain the interim order.
4. A reading of the pleadings of the parties would reveal that
the property is situated at Fire Brigade, Laitumkhrah, which is known as
Madan Iew Rynghep ground. Earlier a Writ Petition was filed in
W.P.(C) No.519 of 2022, wherein an interim order of stay was obtained
by the very same Appellant herein, against which Writ Appeal in
W.A.No.5 of 2023 was preferred before the Division Bench in which,
one of us (Justice W.Diengdoh) was a party to the proceedings and the
Division Bench passed the following order:
"6. As to the order of the Deputy Commissioner
dated November 12, 2022, status quo will be maintained in
the sense that the land will be permitted to be used as a
playground and, in the very exceptional case, subject to the
previous permission of the Deputy Commissioner, the odd
fair may be allowed, but this should not exceed more than
two a year till such time that the dispute as to title is
resolved by the appropriate forum. However, if the
appellant does not institute an appropriate suit canvassing
title in respect of the land in question within a period of
three months from date, the effect of the order passed by
the Deputy Commissioner on November 12, 2022 will
remain undiluted."
5. The main contention of the Writ Petitioner, who is the 1st
respondent herein is that the odd fair permission that has been granted to
be conducted twice a year includes a Trade Fair and that the land has
been devolved upon the writ petitioner and that a title suit is pending
before the Civil Court in Misc.Case No.77 of 2023 arising out of Title
Suit No.30 of 2023. When the appellant herein has no right or title to the
property in question, preventing the 1st respondent herein / writ petitioner
in conducting the Trade Fair as directed by the Court amounts to
violation of the order of the Court.
6. A cursory glance at the pleadings makes it very clear that the
suit is pending before the District Council Court at Shillong bearing
T.S.No.30 of 2023 for declaration of right, title, interest, confirmation of
possession and permanent injunction along with miscellaneous
application and the matter is still pending for final adjudication.
7. The Writ Petitioner ought not to have approached this Court by
invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to decide a private
issue, when the suit is already pending. The prayer in the writ petition
reveals that there is a private dispute between the parties, for which relief
has been sought for. Though the writ petitioner stated that the R1 and R2
are the ultimate authorities to grant permission and that the writ petition
is maintainable, in the present writ petition, no relief has been sought for
challenging the decision of the authority, more so when no decision has
been taken in the present case on hand. Private issues cannot be resolved
by exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court in terms of the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Anandi Mukta Sadguru
Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak
Trust and Ors. Vs. V.R.Rudani and Ors reported in AIR 1989 SC 1607,
which has been subsequently followed in yet another judgment in St.
Marys Education Society and Ors. Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and
Ors. reported in (2023) 4 SCC 498.
8. Hence, we are of the view that the writ petition itself is not
maintainable. However, in order to give a quietus to the matter, we
expect the Presiding Officer, Subordinate District Council Court at
Shillong to take up T.S.No.30 of 2023 on a day to day basis without
adjourning the matter beyond seven working days at any point of time
and bring the issue to a logical end within a period of six months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
9. In fine, the Writ Appeal in W.A.No.2/2024 is disposed of and the
Writ Petition in W.P.(C) No.406 of 2023 stands dismissed.
(W.Diengdoh) (S.Vaidyanathan)
Judge Chief Justice
Meghalaya
15.02.2024
"Lam DR-PS"/"ar"
