SMT. SARASWATI VISWAKARMA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner, who has filed a Title Suit [No.38 (H) of 2016] under Sec. 10 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 claiming her share by way of inheritance in the property left by her deceased father; and has also filed an application for temporary injunction therein, seeks to challenge the Lease Agreement dated 10.01.2011, No Objection Certificate dated 20.01.2011 and Sanction for Construction dated 26.03.2016 as issued by the respondents No.1 to 3 in favour of the respondents No.4 to 6 in relation to the property in dispute.

(2.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the application for temporary injunction filed by her in the Title Suit, the learned Trial Court granted ex-parte injunction on 30.08.2016 and thereafter, show cause was filed by the defendants. It is contended that on perusal of the show cause so filed, by the petitioner realised that her brothers, with ulterior motive, forged an alleged Will by their father, although no such Will was ever executed. The petitioner has also alleged that in the matter regarding the alleged Will, probate proceedings in Probate Case No.1 (T) of 2016 are pending in the Court of ADC (Judicial), Shillong but then, the legatees of disputed Will got their names mutated in the record and obtained the impugned Lease Agreement and on that basis, also obtained the impugned No Objection Certificate and Sanction for Construction.

(3.) It has been strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that grant of such Lease Agreement and issuance of No Objection Certificate and construction permission are the actions wholly illegal and unauthorised on the part of the respondents No.1 to 3 and hence, the petitioner is entitled to maintain her challenge thereto by way of this writ petition. It is submitted that the petitioner was not aware of such proceedings and of such documents until filing of show cause to her application for temporary injunction; but after coming to know about such documents/proceedings, has preferred this writ petition against such acts of the State authorities, which are required to be dealt with in the writ jurisdiction of this Court.