By Our Reporter
SHILLONG, June 26: The High Court of Meghalaya on Thursday disposed of a PIL on a dispute over the Mawjymbuin cave in Mawsynram, East Khasi Hills district.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Indra Prasanna Mukerji and Justice Wanlura Diengdoh said in the judgment that the issue is of significant public interest.
“There is a stone configuration there. The petitioner and a section of the local Khasi tribe supporting him believe that this is “Shiva Linga” or the deity Shiva of the Hindu religion. The cave has acquired substantial religious importance. There is no dispute that hundreds of devotees visit this cave to offer puja,” the order read.
The court observed that a document was executed and registered on May 14, 2015, before the Joint Registrar of Societies, East Khasi Hills district, in Shillong by Amossingstar Syiem Malngiang, the Syiem of Mawsynram and the Dorbar, allegedly conveying the above property to the Seng Khasi Hima Mawsynram, Mawsynram Syiemship, which was established at that place on February 25, 2012.
“There is a claim of non-Hindu tribes over the selfsame property,” the judgment read.
According to the court, it appeared that the vendors instituted a suit before the Khasi Hills District Council Court, claiming a declaration that the agreement on May 14, 2015, is “non est and void” and for consequent protective orders with regard to the said religious property. “It is alleged that there was no transfer of this property,” the judgment read.
The petitioner cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6673 of 2014 – Satya Pal Anand vs the State of MP and others, decided on October 26, 2016 – to contend that the District Council Court had no power to entertain, try, and determine the suit in question. He also cited the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council vs the State of Meghalaya and others, decided by the same court on February 12, 2016.
“We fail to understand how either of the two cases has any relevance to the case of the petitioner. The first judgment only said that once the registering authority had registered a document, it had no power to cancel it,” the court said.
On the second decision, the headmen of the areas covered by the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution were allowed to continue.
On the other hand, N Mozika, the Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India, showed the court sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 4 of Schedule Six to the Constitution of India enacted under Articles 244 (2) and 275 (1) thereof. He said that only the District Council Court was vested with the power to try suits and cases involving the Scheduled Tribes.
Apart from this, the court was told that there is a writ petition [WP (C) No.275 of 2024] pending before the single judge of the High Court of Meghalaya, and although the petitioner is not the same, the issue involved is similar. The judge, the court was told, has formed a committee to inquire into and resolve the issue involved.
“We think it fit and proper that this public interest litigation is referred to the learned single judge in WP (C) No.275 of 2024. We order accordingly. Since religious land and religious sentiments are involved, his lordship is requested to make an effort to resolve the matter amicably through mediation/ settlement,” the court said, adding the petitioner of the PIL as a party in the writ petition referred to.
Alternatively, the court suggested that in case of failure of mediated settlement, the judge may refer the subject matter of this PIL to the District Council Court in the said suit filed by the vendors of the said property before it.
The court added that the question of whether the District Council Court has jurisdiction or not may be directed to be tried as a preliminary issue, and if the District Council Court comes to the conclusion that it has jurisdiction, it shall continue to hear the matter.
“Till the writ petition [WP (C) No.275 of 2024] is disposed of, the District Council Court shall only proceed to pass any interim order in the said suit after leave is taken by any interested party from the single judge,” the court added.