WP(C)/378/2025 of TANSUK TOI Vs THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND 3 ORS. on 13 July 2026

1. The State of Meghalaya, represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Meghalaya, Meghalaya.

2. The Deputy Commissioner (Rev.), East Khasi Hills District, Shillong, Meghalaya.

3. The Superintendent of Police, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong – 1, Meghalaya.

4. The Officer in Charge, Jhalupara Outpost, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong, Meghalaya.

…Respondents

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S.Thangkhiew, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner/Applicant(s) : Mr. N.Syngkon, Adv.

Ms. N.Sangma, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)

: Ms. N.G.Shylla, Adv.

Ms. Z.E.Nongkynrih, GA.

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. The petitioner, who claims to be the owner of a plot of land measuring 6105 sq.ft. situated at Lumpdeng, Upper Shillong, alleged purchased on 06- 03-2021, is before this Court assailing an order dated 07-08-2025, issued by the respondent No. 2 [Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), East Khasi Hills District, Shillong], whereby he has been directed to stop the ongoing construction.

2. Mr. N.Syngkon, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondent No. 2 is without any authority and illegal, inasmuch as, a valid building permission/sanction has been received from the office of the Executive Committee, Khasi Hills Autonomous District

Council, after which the construction had commenced. He therefore prays that appropriate orders be passed for quashing and setting aside the impugned letter.

3. Ms. N.G.Shylla, learned Sr. GA for the State respondents has submitted that the impugned letter itself would reveal that the petitioner has been directed to stop the ongoing and unauthorised constructions at a government revenue land being Pyrda Estate at 3rd Mile Upper Shillong. She submits that this being a revenue matter, the petitioner has alternate remedy to pursue before the revenue authorities.

4. This Court has heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned letter.

5. Though the grievance of the writ petitioner is with the authority of the respondent No. 2 to issue such orders on the ground that it would amount to violation of the right guaranteed under Article 300-A, in the considered view of this Court, however, as the matter involves disputed questions of fact, especially with regard to the location of the said plot of land, the cause of the petitioner would be well served if an appropriate petition is made before the Revenue authorities, more particularly the Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), East Khasi Hills District for examination of the matter. It is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to raise all issues which have been canvassed before this Court. It is expected that the matter should be taken up and addressed by the Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), East Khasi Hills District within a period of six weeks from the date a petition is filed.

6. As ordered above, matter stands closed and disposed of.

7. All interim applications also stand closed and disposed of.

Judge

2026:MLHC:698 Digitally signed by SAMANTHA ANNA LIYA RYNJAH Date: 2026.07.13 17:37:47 IST Signature Not Verified