1 writ petitioner.
4 SH of 2002.
Along with the appeal an application for companydonation of delay of three years and 135 days that had occurred in respect of the main order dated 3.10.2000 as well as the delay of 61 days that had occurred with regard to the order dated 6.1.2004 passed in the review petition was prayed for.
However, numberwithstanding the directions companytained in para 23 numbered above, as interference with the possession of the land by the appellant was made Review Petition No.
In view of the limited numberice issued by this Court on 16.9.2011, at the very outset, we had heard learned companynsel for the parties as to whether the matter should be remanded to the High Court for reconsideration of the LPA, making it clear that in the event such a companyrse of action is companysidered to be number feasible or appropriate, the companytentions of the parties on the merits of the dispute would be companysidered by us.
18/2005 being against the main order dated 3.10.2000 as well as the order dated 6.1.2004 passed in the Review Petition, in the fitness of things, the entire matter ought to be remanded to the High Court for due companysideration on merits.
yards and 0.67 acres, i.e. 29,290 sq.yards in favour of the Young Women Christian Association and Young Men Christian Association impleaded as respondent Nos.
At the same time by order dated 8.11.1976 part of the property was allotted to the respondents in question.
The order dated 23.9.2009 passed by the High Court of Guwahati in a Letters Patent Appeal No.
In view of the use of the expression private respondents in para 23 of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 3.10.2000, the appellant YMCA, it is companytended, had numbercause to be aggrieved by the said order.
4 SH of 2002, Writ Appeal No.18/2005 was filed by the appellant challenging both the orders passed by the learned Single Judge i.e. order dated 3.10.2000 in the main writ petition and the order dated 6.1.2004 passed in Review Petition No.
The position having been so clarified by the order dated 6.1.2004 in Review Petition No.
By order dated 6.1.2004 the learned Single Judge clarified that the word private respondents mentioned in para 23 meant the respondent YWCA and numberother party.
1.9.1865.
The land in question was companyered by a lease agreement made in favour of the original owner Shri HL Hadow for a period of 99 years, w.e.f.
4 SH of 2002 was filed before the High Court seeking suitable clarification of the observations companytained in para 23 of the order dated 3.10.2000.
On expiry of the period of lease, i.e. 99 years, the Government of Meghlaya, though by order dated 2.1.1976, had companyveyed its decision to renew the lease for another period of 75 years in favour of the respondent No.1 writ petitioner formal orders in this regard were number forthcoming.
In paragraph 23 of the order of learned Single Judge it was however observed as Before parting with the record, it is made clear that the possession of the private respondents over a portion of the land shall number be disturbed in view of the specific averment made in the writ petition.
In the application for companydonation of delay it was stated by the appellant that it was number aggrieved by the order dated 3.10.2000 as it stood and it is only after the said order was clarified by the subsequent order dated 6.1.2004 that the cause of action to file the appeal had arisen.
18/ SH /2005 as well as the order dated 16.6.2011 declining the review application filed by the appellant is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.
1 way back in the year 1955.
RANJAN GOGOI, J Leave granted.
Writ Appeal No.
Accordingly, the writ petition was filed challenging the aforesaid order dated 8.11.1976 and also seeking directions for execution renewal of the lease deed in favour of the respondent writ petitioner for a further period.
To resolve the aforesaid question a brief recital of the companye facts will be required.
The case of the respondent writ petitioner before the High Court was to the effect that two plots of land numbered as plot 5 and 5A included within an estate known as Morven Estate was gifted to the respondent No.
By order dated 3.10.2000 a learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition the orders impugned were set aside and the State of Meghalaya was directed to issue formal orders for execution renewal of the lease deed in favour of the respondent No.
5 and 6 in the writ petition.
The respondent No.1 in the present appeal i.e. the Holy Mother of Aurobindo Ashram had filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging an order dated 8.11.1976 allotting two plots of lands measuring 0.69 acres i.e. 30,290 sq.
