Smt. Chandra Pradhan vs State of Meghalaya And Others

Though the matter is at the motion stage, but looking to the totality of circumstances, this Court finds no reason to keep this petition pending by

issuing notice to the unrepresented respondent; rather it appears proper and in the interest of justice that appropriate directions be issued to the

authorities concerned to take a decision in the matter in accordance with law.

Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for the present purpose could be noticed as follows: The petitioner has stated that Late Shri

Krishan Lal Pradhan, who was the father of her father-in-law, purchased a plot of land admeasuring 46,816 sq.ft. at Thembasuk, Block-E,

Madanryting, Shillong under patta dated 11.10.1953. According to the petitioner, after the death of Late Krishan Lal Pradhan, the property got

devolved upon his son Late Ganesh Kumar Pradhan and a patta was issued by respondent No. 3 in that regard. Further, according to the

petitioner, Shri Ganesh Kumar Pradhan also expired on 29.08.2011, leaving behind his widow, Smt. Narbada Pradhan, his eldest son, Shri

Monohar Pradhan (petitioner''s husband), and his younger son Shri Sohan Pradhan. The petitioner has averred that there had been a family

settlement whereunder, the scheduled plots of land came to her husband, who was issued two pattas dated 28.03.2015. The petitioner has further

submitted that her husband, Shri Monohar Pradhan expired in the year 2015 whereafter the said plots of land were inherited by her and she was

also issued two pattas dated15.09.2015.

While placing on record, the photostat of the alleged pattas dated 15.09.2015 as Annexure V and VI, the petitioner has averred that during the

process of making photocopies of the said two pattas, she lost the original thereof and thus, lodged a missing report with the concerned Police

Station. The petitioner has annexed with this petition the report issued by the Officer-in-charge, Madanryting Police Station, East Khasi Hills

District which reads as under:

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

On 4th November, 2016 received a Missing FIR from Smti Chandra Pradhan W/o (L) Mandhar Pradhan of Madanrting Thembasuk

Block-E, Shillong to the effect that on 15/10/2016 she had gone to Assam Bazar for making photocopies of her two numbers of

pattas issued by the Dorbar Shnong, Madanrting, Shillong but when she reach her home she found that the two original pattas are

missing from her hand bag. In this connection a missing entry has been made at Madanrting PS vide GDE No. 03 dated 4/12/2016.

However the genuineness of the pattas cannot be verified. Further this report shall not be used for any legal purpose.

Sd/-

Officer In charge

Madanrting Police Station

East Khasi Hills District

The grievance stated in this petition is that after lodging of such a report, the petitioner attempted to submit an application before the respondent

No. 3, Headman, Madanryting, East Khasi Hills, Shillong, with the prayer to issue duplicate pattas but the respondent No. 3 refused to receive the

application and allegedly stated that the petitioner may carry on with the photocopies and that nothing adverse would happen for non-issuance of

duplicate pattas. The averments as taken by the petitioner in this regard read as under:

That your humble Petitioner beg to state and submit that the Petitioner had addressed a letter dated 08/11/2016 to the

Respondent No. 3 enclosing the photocopies of two number of pattas as well as the police report dated 07/11/2016 with a request

to issue duplicate pattas in respect of the two plots of land but to the utter shock and surprise of your humble Petitioner, the

Respondents No. 3 refused to receive the same and asked your humble Petitioner to carry on with the photocopies of the pattas and

assured that nothing adverse will happen to the lands of the petitioner for non issuance of duplicate pattas.

With the aforesaid submissions, the petitioner has made a prayer that directions be issued to respondent No. 3 to issue her duplicate pattas.

The learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 has submitted that though the matter does not directly concern the

State authorities, but in relation to the submissions sought to be made, the petitioner ought to have impleaded the concerned District Council i.e.,

the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council as a party to this writ petition because the headman concerned would be competent to deal with the

matter only under the authority from the said District Council.

In the totality of the circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that interest of justice shall be served by leaving it open for the

petitioner to make an appropriate representation to the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council as also to the headman concerned; and with

directions that the concerned authorities may examine the grievance of the petitioner and issue necessary directions/instructions, of course, strictly

in accordance with law.

Ordered accordingly.

It is made clear that this Court has not pronounced on the merits of the claim of the petitioner and it shall be open for the authorities concerned

to take appropriate decision in the matter, in accordance with law.

In the interest of justice, it is also provided that in case of any difficulty or dispute, it shall be open for respondent No. 3 or any affected person

to move an appropriate application for revival and rehearing of this writ petition.

The petition is disposed of with the observations and directions foregoing.