Cont. Cas (C) No. 1 of 2017. Case: Thomlin Surong and Ors. Vs Persara Manner and Ors.. Meghalaya High Court
| Case Number | Cont. Cas (C) No. 1 of 2017 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: B. Khyriem, Adv. |
| Judges | Dinesh Maheshwari, C.J. |
| Issue | Civil Procedure Code |
| Judgement Date | February 06, 2017 |
| Court | Meghalaya High Court |
Order:
Dinesh Maheshwari, C.J.
-
The petitioners herein, seven in number, have filed this contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience and violation of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 240 of 2014, W.P.(C) No. 51 of 2015, and W.P.(C) No. 10 of 2016.
-
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents; but it appears appropriate to leave it open for the petitioners to take recourse of appropriate remedy in accordance with law.
-
In brief, the relevant background aspects of the matter could be noticed in the following: The petitioner No. 1 claims to be the headman of Amlanai Village, Elaka Satpator, West Jaintia Hills District. With the submissions that Amlanai village was established by the forefathers and mothers of the villagers in the year 1936, it is alleged that the petitioners/farmers had been cultivating the land encompassed within the boundaries stated in paragraph 3 of the petition. The petitioners/farmers have been disputing the demand of Zamindari tax/fees by the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3, the alleged land owners; and this has led to a web of litigation between the parties. It appears that the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the Court of Subordinate Judge of the District Council Court, Jowai, being Title Suit No. 21 of 2011 and therein, an application for interim injunction was also filed. According to the petitioners, the said prayer for interim injunction was declined by the Court concerned in its order dated 31.08.2012 with the finding that the petitioners/farmers were in possession of the land but the parties were directed to maintain status quo. The petitioners have further pointed out that the said title suit was withdrawn on 07.11.2012 and thereafter, the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 filed another title suit bearing No. 18 of 2013, which is pending. It appears that despite pendency of such a civil suit, there had been multiplication of disputes between the parties. Some police action was also attempted against the petitioners whereupon, they filed a writ petition bearing No. 240 of 2014 in this Court wherein, by the order dated 11.08.2014, status quo was ordered to be maintained.
-
According to the petitioners, there had been further attempt to forcibly evict them whereupon, they filed an FIR against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial