Rebati Mohan Sharma vs State Of Meghalaya & Ors.

The pleaded case of the petitioner is that a plot of land which originally belonged to the father of the petitioner situated at Machepara, B Mahal, Garo Hills District measuring about 7 bighas was occupied by the then Public Works Department of the then Assam Government in the year 1950, without due process of law being followed, nor compensation paid, or the acquisition process ever being finalized. With the advent of the State of Meghalaya, it is stated that the liabilities for the same stood transferred to the State of Meghalaya and as such it was incumbent upon the respondents to complete the process and pay due compensation to the petitioners.

I have heard learned counsels for the parties.

Mr. R. Kar, learned counsel for the petitioner in his submissions has stated that the State respondents have been in unlawful occupation of his land since the time of the erstwhile Assam Government. He submits that the occupation of the said plot was illegal inasmuch as, the same was without the completion of acquisition proceedings which he submits is evident from a communication dated 25.07.1967 (Annexure-1). He therefore, prays that the respondents be directed to pay compensation for the period the land was under their occupation, and also if the land is sought to be acquired, the same is to be done so after following the proper procedure as provided in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Mr. S. Sengupta, learned Addl. Sr. GA on behalf of the respondent No. 1 to 3 in reply to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from a long delay, the whole case involves disputed questions of facts and moreover he submits that the writ petitioner has not established his clear right and title in any manner and as such before a writ court, the same cannot be adjudicated especially to determine the rights of the parties. As such, he submits that the matter being situated such, the same be dismissed.

Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent No. 4 has adopted the submissions made by the learned Addl. Sr. GA for the respondent No. 1 to 3.

I have heard learned counsels for the parties and considered their submissions and examined the materials on record. The only document that sheds any light is at Annexure-1, which is the communication dated 25.07.1967, where the name of the petitioner's father is indicated as having a valid claim and some process was on by the then Assam Govt. to determine and settle the same. Apart, from the same the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any other documents which would enable this court sitting in writ jurisdiction to determine the issue finally as to the factum of occupation by petitioners of the plot and whether the respondents are in occupation of any portion thereof. The counsel for the State respondents had however, submitted that they are in occupation of the disputed land. The entire dispute ranging from the title, to the factum of occupation of the land, or a part thereof by both the petitioner and the respondent cannot be gone into in this proceeding as it involves disputed question of facts.

Accordingly, without further dwelling on the merits or demerits, the writ petition is disposed of leaving the petitioner to seek alternative appropriate remedy including approaching the Civil Courts.