Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Decision: 18.07.2025 vs The State Of Meghalaya Represented By on 18 July, 2025
Author: H. S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H. S. Thangkhiew
2025:MLHC:624
Serial No. 02
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 106 of 2025
Date of Decision: 18.07.2025
Shri Reagle Warjri,
S/o (L) H. Soanes, Aged about 34 years
R/o Umroi Nongrah,
Ri-Bhoi District, Meghalaya ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Meghalaya represented by
The Chief Secretary, Government of Meghalaya,
Shillong.
2. The Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya,
Revenue and Disaster Management Department,
Shillong
3. The Deputy Commissioner (Revenue),
Ri-Bhoi District, Meghalaya.
4. The Additional Deputy Commissioner,
Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh.
5. Smti Emma Tariang,
D/o (L) Smti Viola Tariang,
R/o Mawlai Nonglum,
Shillong-793008,
East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya .... Respondent(s)
6. Headmen,
Umden Mission Village,
P.O. Umroi, Ri-Bhoi District, Meghalaya
7. Smti Jnger Ryntathiang,
Umden Mission Village,
P.O. Umroi, Ri-Bhoi District, Meghalaya
..Proforma Respondent(s)
Page 1 of 5
2025:MLHC:624
_________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. L. Syiem, Adv. with
Mr. K.V. Kharlyngdoh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A.H. Kharwanlang, Addl. Sr. GA
(For R 1-4)
Dr. N. Mozika, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. M.L. Nongpiur, Adv. (For R 7)
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. Heard Mr. L. Syiem, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Also heard Dr. N. Mozika, learned Senior counsel assisted by
Mr. M.L. Nongpiur, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7, and Mr.
A.H. Kharwanlang, learned Addl. Sr. GA for the respondents Nos. 1 to 4.
3. None appears on behalf of the respondent No. 5.
4. The writ petitioner by the instant writ petition is seeking
directions to issue to the respondent No. 3, to refer the Reference Petition
dated 26.02.2025, filed by the writ petitioner to be taken up in accordance
Page 2 of 5
2025:MLHC:624
with Section 64 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
5. Mr. L. Syiem, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the background facts are that the writ petitioner had bona fide
purchased a plot of land from the respondent No. 5, on 11.02.2024 (who
in spite of service has not entered appearance), and only thereafter came
to learn of the pendency of a Title Suit with the vendor (respondent No.
5) as plaintiff and a certain Smti Jnger Ryntathiang and Shri Dron Synteng
Nongdhar, arrayed as defendants. The learned counsel submits that the
writ petitioner thereafter supported the respondent No. 5, financially in the
Suit in the anticipation that on the conclusion of the proceedings, he would
be given due benefit thereof. It is further submitted that to facilitate the
conduct of the litigation, the respondent No. 5 had executed a power of
attorney instrument in favour of the writ petitioner. However, he submits
without the knowledge of the writ petitioner, the said power of attorney
was revoked, and the respondent No. 5, and the other parties have since
reached a settlement, which has left the writ petitioner without any
remedy. He therefore, submits that as the acquisition proceedings of the
said plot of land are still pending, his prayer at this stage is only that the
entire dispute be referred to the Reference Court, so that their respective
claims can be adjudicated.
Page 3 of 5
2025:MLHC:624
6. Dr. N. Mozika, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. M.L.
Nongpiur, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7, though arrayed as a
proforma respondent, has referred to the affidavit filed on behalf of the
respondent No. 7, and submitted that a settlement has been reached
between the respondent No. 5 and the successors in interest of the
respondent No. 7, and at present, though there is no dispute the matter is
still to attain its finality before the Civil Court. He further submits that the
Suit had been instituted as far back as in 2002, whereas the writ petitioner
by his own admission by the unregistered Sale Deed, allegedly purchased
the plot of land only in February, 2024. As such, he submits that the writ
petitioner having not established any right over the property, no relief as
claimed will be permissible.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also on
examining the materials as placed, at the outset, it is noted that the matter
concerns disputed facts, and also secondly, the dispute if still surviving, is
purely civil in nature, with the Suit pending before the District Council
Court at Nongpoh. A perusal of the Settlement Deed, which has been
annexed to the affidavit also is not sufficient to let this Court arrive at any
conclusion, with regard to the dispute.
8. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in
the considered view of this Court, the writ petition cannot be entertained
Page 4 of 5
2025:MLHC:624
as the same concerns disputed facts, and civil proceedings as submitted
are still subsisting. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is rejected,
leaving the writ petitioner to seek alternate civil remedy, as admissible.
9. With the above noted directions, the matter stands closed and
is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
Meghalaya
18.07.2025
“V. Lyndem-PS”
Signature Not Verified Page 5 of 5
Digitally signed by
VALENTINO LYNDEM
Date: 2025.07.18 16:23:12 IST
[ad_1]
Source link