Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Meghalaya High Court

The Shillong Recreation Ground Trust vs . State Of Meghalaya & 3 on 8 October, 2021

Author: Ranjit More

Bench: Ranjit More

     Serial No. 19
     Regular List

                          HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                              AT SHILLONG

WP(C). No. 229 of 2021
                                                       Date of Order: 08.10.2021

The Shillong Recreation Ground Trust             Vs.    State of Meghalaya & 3
& 3 Ors.                                                Ors.


Coram:
         Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Judge.

Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) :         Dr. N.Mozika, Sr. Adv. with
                                          Mr. M.L.Nongpiur, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)              :      Mr. A.Kumar, AG with

Mr. S.Saraogi, Adv.

Ms. R.Colney, GA for R 1-3.

Mr. K.Paul, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.Panthi, Adv. for R 4.

1. Heard Dr. N.Mozika, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A.Kumar, learned AG for the respondents No. 1-3 and Mr. K.Paul, learned Sr. counsel for the respondent No. 4.

2. By filing this petition, petitioner is challenging the public notice dated 9th July, 2021 issued by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Revenue & Disaster Management Department under Article 296 of the Constitution of India. By this public notice, it is brought to the notice of the public that the properties described in the Schedule appended to the said public notice owned by one Mr. George Loftus Grath (of Dacca Solicitor) has fallen vacant since his death on 16-06-1904 for want of lawful owner and is subject to be vested with the State of Meghalaya by operation of Article 296 of the Constitution of India.

3. Undisputedly, the property described in the Schedule referred above is popularly known as the Jawaharlal Nehru Sports Complex. The petitioner claims ownership of this property. The respondents No. 1, 2 & 3, on the 1 contrary disputed the ownership of the petitioner and submitted that they are encroachers. It is further the case of the respondents-State that after the death of Mr. George Loftus Grath, the property referred in Schedule fell vacant for want of owner and therefore, same is Scheduled under Article 296 of the Constitution of India.

4. Inter alia Dr. N.Mozika, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner made an objection about the competency of the State Government to issue the notice under Article 296 of the Constitution, especially when the petitioner has claimed ownership. He submitted that already four suits are pending in the Civil Court regarding the property which is referred in the Schedule appended to the impugned public notice and therefore, State could not have proceeded under Article 296 of the Constitution of India.

5. Mr. A.Kumar, learned AG at the outset objected the maintainability of the writ petition on merits. He submitted that petitioner is not entitled to any relief. He further submitted that the State respondent wants to construct and improve the proposed Sports Stadium on the land in question. He also submitted that the State Government has received grant of approximately more than 100 crores for the purpose of construction and improvement of the proposed Sports Stadium on the land in question in view of the ensuing National Games, 2022. The grievance of learned AG is that despite these facts, petitioner is not allowing the State to construct and improve the proposed sports stadium.

6. Dr. N.Mozika, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner having taken instruction from his client who is present in the Court makes a statement that petitioner has no objection to the respondents undertaking the construction and improvement work on the proposed Sports Stadium on land in question, pending consideration of the issue raised in the petition.

7. In the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that arguable points are raised which requires detailed hearing. Therefore, I grant Rule. Hearing expedited.

8. By way of interim relief, following arrangements are made:

i) The impugned public notice dated 9th July, 2021 shall remain stayed.

ii) The petitioner shall not object to the respondents undertaking the construction and improvement work of the proposed sports stadium on the land in question.

iii) The petitioner shall not transfer, alienate or encumber the land in question.

9. The question of issue of maintainability of the petition is kept open to be agitated at the time of final hearing. Needless to mention, interim arrangements made hereinabove shall be subject to the outcome of the petition. Stand over to 02-11-2021.

Judge Meghalaya 08.10.2021 "Samantha PS"