High Court of Meghalaya upholds existing principle that once a demarcation direction is complied with factually—even if unsuccessful—the writ petition stands answered, providing persuasive authority for land dispute mandamus petitions.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/87/2025 of ZILUR RAHMAN Vs GARO HILLS AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL AND 6 ORS. |
| CNR | MLHC010002792025 |
| Decision Date | 27-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew |
| Court | High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong |
| Bench | Single-Judge Bench |
| Type of Law | Writ Jurisdiction / Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ petition seeking mandamus for land demarcation is satisfied by an attempted demarcation, even if the demarcation is unsuccessful. |
| Ratio Decidendi | Once the court-directed demarcation exercise is carried out—even if the outcome is inconclusive due to petitioner’s inability to identify his possession—the writ remedy is met, and the petitioner must pursue other legal remedies if still aggrieved. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner sought a direction to demarcate his land. Respondents produced a Lot Mandal report showing the demarcation attempt failed because the petitioner could not identify his possession as per records. |
| Citations | 2025:MLHC:762 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in land demarcation mandamus petitions within Meghalaya |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts dealing with writ petitions for land demarcation |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that factual compliance with a court’s demarcation order, even if inconclusive, satisfies the writ petition.
- Emphasises that the success of the exercise is secondary to the performance of the directed act.
- Guides practitioners to advise clients that an aggrieved party must then resort to alternative statutory or civil remedies.
- Provides a persuasive precedent for resisting further writ relief once an attempt to comply has been documented.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner’s sole relief sought was a direction to the GHADC to demarcate his land.
- Respondents produced a Lot Mandal report taken on record, showing an attempted demarcation.
- The failure of demarcation stemmed from the petitioner’s inability to identify his possession against official records.
- Since the court-directed act (demarcation) was carried out, the writ petition’s prayer was answered.
- The court observed that any further grievance must be pursued through other remedies provided under law.
- The writ petition was accordingly closed as disposed of.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Filed the writ petition alleging inaction by the authorities to demarcate his land.
- Sought a mandamus directing GHADC to carry out demarcation.
Respondents (GHADC authorities)
- Produced a Lot Mandal report showing demarcation was attempted.
- Highlighted discrepancies in petitioner’s ability to identify his possession as per records.
- Submitted that the writ relief had been complied with in substance.
Factual Background
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council to demarcate his land. The respondents, upon direction, engaged Lot Mandals to demarcate the plot. The official report recorded that demarcation could not be completed because the petitioner himself could not align his possession with the land records. The court held that since the demarcation exercise was conducted as ordered, albeit unsuccessfully, the petitioner’s writ prayer was satisfied and closed the petition.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms existing principle on mandamus compliance for land demarcation.
Citations
- 2025:MLHC:762