Sikkim High Court
Jigme Lachungpa vs District Magistrate, Gangtok And Ors on 21 May, 2025
Author: Meenakshi Madan Rai
Bench: Meenakshi Madan Rai
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
(Civil Extraordinary Jurisdiction)
DATED : 21st May, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE BENCH : THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WP(C) No.50 of 2024
Petitioner : Jigme Lachungpa
versus
Respondents : District Magistrate, Gangtok and Others
Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Mr. Sajal Sharma and Mr. Kazi Sangay Thupden, Advocates for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Yadev Sharma, Government Advocate for the Respondents No.1
and 5.
Mr. S. S. Hamal, Senior Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) with Mr. Tashi
Wongdi Bhutia, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) for the Respondent
No.2.
Mr. Sangay G. Bhutia, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) for the
Respondent No.3.
Mr. S. S. Hamal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pradeep Sharma and Ms.
Beneeta Gurung, Advocates for the Respondent No.4.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
1. The Petitioner herein, the Complainant before the
Learned District Magistrate, is aggrieved by the Order of the Learned
District Magistrate, dated 17-10-2024, in an unnumbered Criminal
Misc. Case of 2024, between the litigating parties herein and assails
it.
2. The Petitioner's case is that he was in possession of a
plot of land, bearing registration No.2246, measuring 0.0960
hectares, situated at Lingdum Busty, Ray Khola, Gangtok. He claims
to have been dispossessed from the said plot of land from 14-02-
2024, by the Respondents No.2, 3 and 4. As per the Petitioner, the
Jigme Lachungpa vs. District Magistrate, Gangtok and Others
property stands recorded in the name of his father Late T.
Lachungpa with no family partition having been effected thereto.
The Respondents denied the allegations of dispossession.
(i) It is recorded in the impugned Order inter alia that, after
receipt of the Complaint, apprehending breach of peace, the parties
were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the disputed
property, on 30-03-2024. Thereafter, on going through the
pleadings of the parties and the Police report, the District Magistrate
was of the view that as the parties were family members and there
was no partition or settlement amongst them, the proceedings under
Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,
"Cr.P.C."), was inappropriate and accordingly rejected, reasoning
that, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try cases of a civil nature.
The Order dated 30-03-2024 was also consequently revoked.
3. Thus aggrieved, this Petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed inter alia with the following
prayers;
(a) A rule upon the Respondent No.1 to show-cause why
the impugned Final Order dated 17-10-2024, passed by
the Respondent No.1 shall not be set aside;
(b) A writ or order or direction or declaration that the Final
Order/Judgment dated 17-10-2024 passed by the
Respondent No.1 Learned District Magistrate, Gangtok
is illegal and hence liable to be set aside;
(c) A writ or order directing that the impugned Final Order
dated 17-10-2024, be set aside, and the matter be
remanded for adjudication by the Respondent No.1 by
conducting the final hearing and cross-examination of
witnesses, in a fair and impartial manner;
(d) Costs of the proceedings;
(e) Pass any other writ(s), order(s)/direction(s) as this
Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of this present Writ Petition.
4. It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner
that, the Petitioner is aggrieved by the irregularity in the
Jigme Lachungpa vs. District Magistrate, Gangtok and Others
proceedings before the Learned District Magistrate, where all the
parties marked their presence on 24-07-2024, as buttressed by
Annexure P-14, the attendance sheet. The document indicates the
attendance of the District Magistrate on the said date along with that
of the Petitioner in person, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Kazi Sangay Thupden and Ms. Som Maya Gurung, while Mr.
Mohan Sharma entered appearance for the Respondents No.2 and 3.
That, on the said date, the District Magistrate verbally ordered the
parties to file their evidence on affidavit on the next date. Pursuant
to the said order, the evidence on affidavit was filed before the
District Magistrate, by the Petitioner as fortified by Annexures P-16
and P-17 on 03-09-2024 and by the Respondents No.2 and 3 vide
Annexure P-18 on the same date. The District Magistrate also gave
the Respondents No.1 and 2 the liberty to file response to the
Rejoinder filed by the Complainant. After all of the above measures
were taken by the parties, it was ordered that the evidence on
affidavit would be confirmed and cross-examination would be
conducted before the concerned authority.
5. However, much to the surprise of the Petitioner, on 17-
10-2024, sans any of the aforementioned steps being taken and
despite the evidence on affidavit having been filed, the impugned
Final Order was pronounced, devoid of an opportunity to the
Petitioner to cross-examine the Respondents No.1 and 2.
Consequently, on non-compliance of procedure prescribed by law
there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice, to the
prejudice of the Petitioner. It is submitted by Learned Counsel for
the Petitioner that the impugned Final Order may be set aside and
the District Magistrate be directed to take steps as per law and as
Jigme Lachungpa vs. District Magistrate, Gangtok and Others
per the verbal orders issued by him to the parties pursuant to the
attendance sheet dated 24-07-2024.
6. Learned Counsel for all the Respondents fairly admit the
facts and circumstances as elucidated hereinabove and have no
objection to the arguments advanced by Learned Counsel for the
Petitioner.
7. Having given due consideration to the submissions of
Learned Counsel for the parties and the fact that the opposing
Counsel have no objection, the impugned Final Order of the District
Magistrate dated 17-10-2024 is set aside, with a direction to the
Learned District Magistrate to take necessary steps in terms of the
procedure prescribed by Section 145 of the Cr.P.C.
8. Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
9. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
( Meenakshi Madan Rai )
Judge
21-05-2025
ds
