AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Mrs. S. Bhattacharjee, learned GA appearing on
behalf of the State respondents.
The brief fact of the petitioner''s case in a nutshell is that:
The Petitioners are aggrieved by the illegal action of the State Govt. in forcibly occupying the community land belonging to the
people in Elaka Saitsohpen on erroneous presumption that the State is the owner of the land. The State of Meghalaya has been taking
inconsistent stand regarding the ownership of land in Elaka Saitsohpen in as much as it is taking Pattas from the District Council and
at the same time, it has been issuing order acquiring the land on its own. The legal position so far as land in the State of Meghalaya is
concerned, it is not owned by the State but by the people in the Scheduled areas. Therefore, taking away land of people in Elaka
Saitsohpen by the State Govt. is per se illegal and it is encroaching and violating fundamental constitutional and legal rights of the
people of Elaka Saitsohpen.
The Petitioners herein are the owners of the land in the Elaka Saitsohpen area in the East Khasi Hills District of the State of
Meghalaya which is sought to be forcefully acquired by the State Government of the State of Meghalaya in gross contravention to the
fundamental rights of the petitioners/people and also in contravention of the Statutory mandate of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013.
The State Government has proceeded to acquire the said lands forcibly and has even started construction of buildings on the said
land. The people have been forcibly dispossessed by the State Government on the erroneous pretext that the land in the said area
vests with the State Government and not with the petitioners, which the fact is completely baseless and contrary to the facts on record
and the statutory provisions which clearly indicate that the land vests with the private persons who are the original owners of the land.
Most glaringly, the action of the State Government in dispossessing the people is wholly irresponsible in as much as the Government
itself did not have clarity on the status of the land which is evidenced by the fact that the Government had initially initiated statutory
land acquisition proceedings, however the said proceedings were suspended upon a misconceived presumption that the lands were
Government lands.
Hence this instant writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in possession of the land in question involved in this instant writ petition
from time immemorial and the community land belongs to the people in Elaka Saitsohpen. Now, the Government/respondent claims that the land
belongs to the Government and is trying to dispossess the petitioners from the land by use of force.
In reply to the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned State counsel submits that there was an agreement
between the British Government and the then Raja of Cherrapunjee.
After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I find that there are two issues involved. Firstly, the question of
ownership of the land in dispute is purely a matter of evidence and therefore, I find that the writ Court is not in a position to take any evidence to
settle the ownership. Therefore, I would suggest the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum, if they have any grievances. Secondly, it should
be noted that no one should be dispossessed without due process of law. If the Government/respondent has any claims, then they should approach
the appropriate Court to decide the title and then to take necessary action. However, this decision is left with the parties.
With this observation and direction the instant writ petition is allowed to that extent and stands disposed of.