SHILLONG, May 13: The High Court of Meghalaya on Tuesday heard a PIL on a land and property dispute between two indigenous groups in Mawsynram village.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice IP Mukerji and Justice W Diengdoh directed on April 23 that a March 24 letter of Seng Khasi Hima Mawsynram to the Chief Justice be treated as a petition in public interest litigation and registered accordingly.
The court had directed the matter to be listed on Tuesday after servicing a notice to the Chief Secretary, the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, the Secretary in-charge of land and registration for property within the jurisdiction of the KHADC, and to all other stakeholders.
The court observed that the petitioner, belonging to the Khasi tribe, appeared in person. “Select members of this tribe call themselves Niam Khasi and profess to practice Hindu Sanatan Dharma,” it said, adding that this section filed the PIL through the petitioner.
“There is a serious dispute between this section and another, also belonging to the Khasi tribe, Syiem of Hima Mawsynram, Mawsynram Syiemship, over a piece and parcel of land and property in Mawsynram village. At present, it is under the control of the Headman or Rangbah Shnong Dorbar, Mawsynram,” the court said.
The petitioner submitted that the latter section of Khasis wrongfully took possession of the land and property and was preventing them from carrying out their age-old religious practices on this property.
The court observed from the records that the Syiem Mawsynram and Dorbar filed a title suit against the petitioner group. The suit is pending before the presiding officer of the District Council court, Shillong, in which an alleged memorandum of understanding giving the petitioner the right of worship in the said property, is sought to be set aside and cancelled.
The high court said that Paragraph 4 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India read with the High Court of Meghalaya (Jurisdiction over District Council Courts) Order, 2014, recognises the jurisdiction of the District Council over civil matters, with the high court exercising a right of appeal or revision only in tribal issues.
Under such circumstances, the court directed two respondents to produce the cause papers of the proceedings before the District Council court together with orders that may have been passed by the said body to enable the high court to assess the rights of the parties, prima facie, and to pass an appropriate order in this matter. The court said the question of its jurisdiction in the matter would be decided on the next day of hearing — June 18.
The advocate for the state was requested to inform the presiding officer of the District Council court, Shillong so that he might take no notice of any process of the litigation served upon him by the petitioner.
The court made it clear that the pendency of this petition will not prevent the civil court from proceeding with the suit under law.
