Guwahati: The High Court of Meghalaya on Thursday disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning a land and religious dispute over the Mawjymbuin cave, located in Mawsynram, East Khasi Hills district.
The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Indra Prasanna Mukerji and Justice Wanlura Diengdoh, stated that the matter holds significant public interest due to its religious and tribal sensitivities.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
The cave, home to a naturally occurring stone formation believed by some to resemble a “Shiva Linga,” has become a major site of worship for Hindu devotees. According to the court, “There is no dispute that hundreds of devotees visit this cave to offer puja.”
The legal contention centers around a registered document dated May 14, 2015, executed by the Syiem (traditional chief) of Mawsynram, Amossingstar Syiem Malngiang, and the Dorbar, allegedly transferring the property to the Seng Khasi Hima Mawsynram — a traditional tribal organization. The Seng Khasi entity was established on the premises in 2012.
However, vendors have challenged the legitimacy of this transfer, filing a suit in the Khasi Hills District Council Court. They seek a declaration that the 2015 agreement is “non est and void,” asserting that no lawful property transfer occurred.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
The PIL petitioner argued that the District Council Court lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters, citing Supreme Court judgments including Satya Pal Anand vs. State of MP (2016) and Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council vs. State of Meghalaya (2016).
“We fail to understand how either of the two cases has any relevance to the case of the petitioner. The first judgment only said that once the registering authority had registered a document, it had no power to cancel it,” the court said.
The High Court, however, dismissed the relevance of these precedents in the current dispute.
N Mozika, Deputy Solicitor General representing the Union of India, countered by referencing Schedule Six of the Indian Constitution, specifically sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 4, which grants the District Council Court exclusive jurisdiction over matters involving Scheduled Tribes.
The court learned about a related case — WP (C) No.275 of 2024 — that a single judge of the High Court is currently handling. Although the petitioner is different, the issues overlap significantly.
“We think it fit and proper that we refer this public interest litigation to the learned single judge in WP (C) No.275 of 2024,” the court said.
In light of this, the Division Bench ordered the PIL to merge with the ongoing writ petition and added the current petitioner as a party.
Stating the sensitive nature of the case, the court urged the single judge to explore amicable resolution through mediation or settlement, considering the involvement of religious land and tribal sentiments.
The court added, “Until the single judge disposes of Writ Petition (C) No.275 of 2024, the District Council Court will only issue an interim order in the suit after an interested party obtains leave from the single judge.”