High Court full bench orders in favour of NRI
By Our Reporter
SHILLONG: A day after the refusal of the full bench of the High Court to give any favourable verdict to senior advocate S.P. Mahanta regarding the possession of land and building at Lachumiere which was claimed by Non Resident Indian Tushar Nath Bhattacharjee and his two sisters, Mahanta, said that he was yet to decide on the order of the High Court.
With the order of the High Court delivered on Thursday, Mahanta, the former Additional Advocate General of the State, is left with two options – either to hand over the land along with the building measuring 14,285 sq ft at Lachumiere to Bhattacharjee or to make an appeal before the Supreme Court.
When contacted on Friday, Mahanta said, “I am analyzing the pros and cons of the Court order. I will hold discussion with my family members on the future course of action. I will also discuss with my seniors (lawyers) in Delhi on the matter.”
He, however, said that he had no comments to offer regarding the order of the High Court after he lost the case.
Thursday’s order of the full bench of High Court consisting Chief Justice Uma Nath Singh, Justice S.R. Sen and Justice T.N.K. Singh upheld the June 23, 2014 order of former Chief Justice of the High Court P.C. Pant, who in fact was upholding the order of former District Judge B. Giri which said that Bhattacharjee and his sisters – Sujata Bezbaruah and Sabita Goswami – were entitled to get back the possessions of the land along with the houses as the continued possession of the land by Mahanta was illegal. The order of the District Judge which was endorsed by the High Court of Meghalaya said that the “appellants (Bhattacharjee and others) were entitled to get back the possessions of the piece or parcel of land at Lachumiere with the houses standing thereon”.
Giri had also re-produced the description of land as “measuring more or less 14,285 sq feet covered by plot no. 80 comprised in Patta No. 58 situated at Lachumiere (of European Ward), Shillong, whereupon there stands two Assam type houses of which one is the main house and the other one is the outhouse”.
Mahanta and his wife Venetta Kharsyntiew, had challenged the jurisdiction of District Judge B. Giri and her order by saying that with the appointment of M.B. Challam, Additional Deputy Commissioner (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Giri had no jurisdiction and her order was irrelevant.
However, the High Court observed that the appointment of Challam was temporary in nature and the District Judge had the overall jurisdiction.
In conclusion, the full bench of the High Court indirectly criticized the alleged unethical practice of members of legal profession in taking over the property of the litigants.
“It is also not uncommon to hear complaints against the members of the legal profession about the unethical practice of purchasing the property of litigants or under litigation, in their own name or that of their family members, direct or indirect relatives,” the High Court observed.
In 2004, Bhattacharjee had filed a suit against Mahanta and his wife, for the continued possession of the 14,285 sq feet land since 1992 which according to Bhattacharjee was his parental property left behind by his late father Aghor Nath Bhattacharjee.
After several years, on February 10, 2012, the Munsiff Court (trial court of F.S. Sangma), ruled in favour of Mahanta and his wife following which Bhattacharjee made an appeal before the District Judge B. Giri who set aside the ruling of the Munsiff Court.
However, Mahanta and wife filed a revision petition in the High Court.
After hearing the revision against the order of the District Judge B. Giri dated May 6, 2013, the then Chief Justice of the High Court of Meghalaya, Justice P.C. Pant, in his order on June 23, 2014 refused to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Court.