― Advertisement ―

CERTIFICATE COURSE ON ‘PRACTICAL TRADEMARK FILING & STRATEGY’ BY IFIM LAW SCHOOL, BENGALURU & SONAM GEDA AND COMPANY, INDORE

Certificate Course on ‘Practical Trademark Filing & Strategy’Dates: 22nd & 23rd May 2026 |6:30 PM – 9:30 PM IST|Mode: Virtual modeCertificate: Jointly issued...
HomeThe Shillong Co-Operative vs . State Of Meghalaya & Ors. on 20...

The Shillong Co-Operative vs . State Of Meghalaya & Ors. on 20 April, 2026

ADVERTISEMENT

Meghalaya High Court

The Shillong Co-Operative vs . State Of Meghalaya & Ors. on 20 April, 2026

Author: H. S. Thangkhiew

Bench: H. S. Thangkhiew

 Serial No. 44
 Regular List
                  HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                        AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 376 of 2024
                                   Date of Order: 20.04.2026

The Shillong Co-operative            Vs.    State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Urban Bank Ltd.,

Coram:
            Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge


Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s)       :   Mr. S.D. Upadhaya, Adv. with
                                Ms. A. Synrem, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)       :   Mr. S. Sen, GA with

Mr. R. Colney, GA (For R 1-4)
Mr. S. Dey, Adv. (For R 5)

1. The petitioner Shillong Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., had

SPONSORED

approached the Deputy Commissioner, Revenue vide a letter dated

05.12.2011, for allotment of a plot of land at Rynjah, Shillong, for

establishment of a Branch of the petitioner Bank. Thereafter, the State

respondents on this request by a Certificate of Handing/Taking over

possession had made over to the Bank a plot of land being No. 52,

measuring 220.84 Sq. m, more or less situated at Rynjah/Umpling

Page 1 of 5
Revenue Block, Shillong. However, when the petitioner Bank had

requested for NOC for construction of the said building from the locality

Dorbar, the Rangbah Shnong and the Secretary of Dorbar Shnong Rynjah

had resisted the same vide a letter dated 10.10.2014, addressed to the

Deputy Commissioner. The objection to the proposed construction of the

building it appears, was on the ground that the referred Plot as mentioned

was already in the possession of the Dorbar Shnong Rynjah. In this regard,

along with the objection, a copy of a Declaration Deed dated 14.07.1995,

was annexed, and it was stated that a Playground had been constructed on

the Plot, and that the local Dorbar Hall was also situated therein. As such,

faced with this situation, the petitioner Bank has approached this Court by

way of the instant writ petition, for appropriate directions.

2. Before considering this matter, it is firstly to be noted that the

Dorbar Shnong represented by the Rangbah Shnong and the Secretary had

been arrayed as the respondents Nos. 6 & 7, but however in spite of notice

they have not appeared in the instant matter, which resulted in an order of

ex parte hearing being passed against them on 18.03.2025. As the matter

progressed due to the lack of clarity with regard to the status of the land,

an affidavit was called for from the Revenue authorities as to whether the

Plot in question which has been allotted to the petitioner Bank was already

in the possession of the Rynjah Dorbar, and whether the same Plot had

Page 2 of 5
been allotted to the locality. An affidavit dated 09.12.2025, was then filed

by the Deputy Commissioner, wherein the Minutes of a meeting held in

the office chamber of the Minister I/c Revenue on 02.06.1995, has been

annexed. A perusal of the letter pursuant to the Minutes dated 05.06.1995,

however shows that the same was only an NOC for the

establishment/construction of a Playground at Umpling, to be issued by

the Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong.

3. Mr. S.D. Upadhaya, learned counsel for the petitioner Bank

has submitted that though there is no allotment in favour of the

respondents Nos. 6 & 7, the Deed of Declaration which has been made

only on the basis of the NOC which has been received, will not establish

any right or title in their favour. He further submits that even in this

situation, the Plot allotted to the petitioner Bank to his knowledge is not

the land which is being used by the Rynjah Dorbar for a Playground. He

therefore, prays that appropriate directions be issued, whereby the

allotment as given, be confirmed by order of this Court, and possession be

handed over by the Revenue authorities to the petitioner, as per the

allotment Certificate.

4. To this submission, Mr. S. Sen, learned GA has submitted that

the Declaration Deed, which had been relied upon by the Rynjah Dorbar

in support of their objection had been executed on 14.07.1995, but the

Page 3 of 5
contents thereof would reflect that the same NOC granted on 05.06.1995

has been referred to, and further that this is the only material on which the

Rynjah local Dorbar is relying upon not to grant NOC, to the petitioner

Bank to establish its Branch.

5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court notes

the fact that the petitioner Bank has been allotted a Plot of land by due

process, and are in possession of a Certificate issued by a competent

authority is undisputed. The question that remains to be decided therefore,

is whether this plot of land is being used by the local Dorbar for its own

purpose, or whether the said Plot No. 52, refers to another plot in the

locality, itself.

6. As this matter cannot be decided by this Court sitting in writ

jurisdiction in view of the disputed question facts that have arisen, though

there is a clear vested right in favour of the petitioner, in order to settle the

matter, it is thus deemed appropriate that a Commission be constituted to

conduct a local inspection in the presence of authorized representatives of

the petitioner Bank, Revenue Branch from the Deputy Commissioner’s

office, the Meghalaya Urban Development Authority as well as the

respondents No. 6 & 7, though the matter has since proceed ex parte

against them.

Page 4 of 5

7. Mr. G. Syngkrem, learned counsel who is also the Secretary of

the Meghalaya State Bar Council who has volunteered his service is

appointed by this Court as an Advocate Commissioner to conduct the said

inspection on a convenient date, after receipt of all the materials, which

are before this Court.

8. In the matter of notice to the respondents Nos. 6 & 7, the said

respondents shall be informed by the Advocate Commissioner through the

Officer-in-Charge Rynjah Police Out Post, who shall also be intimated to

be present, at the time of inspection.

9. The only mandate of the Commission being only to identity

the Plot No. 52, which has been allotted to the petitioner Bank, as to

whether the same is vacant or is being used for other purposes by the

Rynjah Dorbar, it is expected that the said exercise shall be completed

within a period of 4(four) weeks, from today. Needless to add, all the

parties herein are to assist the Advocate Commissioner in every possible

way as necessary.

10. A copy of this order be given to all the parties present.

11. List this matter on 20.05.2026.

JUDGE
Meghalaya
20.04.2026
“V. Lyndem-PS”

Signature Not Verified Page 5 of 5
Digitally signed by
VALENTINO LYNDEM
Date: 2026.04.21 16:38:37 IST



Source link