WA 7/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR J CHELAMESWAR HON’BLE MR JUSTICE PK MUSAHARY The MC No.230/2010 is filed with the prayer as follows :- & it is humbly prayed Your Lordship may pleased to pass necessary orders vacati ng/modifying/altering the interim order dated 07.01.2010 passed in W.A No.7 of 2 010 and/or may pass such further or other order or orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper. The writ appeal itself came to be filed aggrieved by an interlocutory or der passed by a learned Judge of this court in WP(C) No.319(SH)/2009 dated 14-12 -09 as modified by order dated 17-12-09. While admitting the appeal a Division B ench of this court, to which one of us was a party (Chief Justice), in its order dated 7-1-2010 opined prima facie that the entire dispute involved in the writ petition appears to be a dispute purely in the realm of private law and, therefo re, both the orders dated 14-12-09 and 17-12-09, referred to above, were kept un der suspension. The entire dispute revolves around the right of the appellants and the r espondent Nos.6 to 8 in the appeal to possess and extract mineral (coal) availab le in a particular piece of property. The respondents/writ petitioners who approached this court by the above mentioned WP(C) No.319/2009 prayed in the writ petition as follows :- & it is prayed that your Lordships may be pleased to call for records, issue a Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of mandamus should not issue :- 1. Directing the respondents No.4 to 7 not to interfere, encroach or dispos sess the petitioners and their clan members from any portion of the land known a s Abalgre Dagal registered vide Registration deed dated 22.3.1925 and re-affir med by Deed dated 20.12.1968 2. Direct the official respondents to ensure that the illegal activities pe rpetuated by the respondents No.4 to 7 are immediately stopped in the aforementi oned land and further direct them to remove the illegal toll gate which has been erected thereon. 3. To direct the official respondents to ensure the rule of law and to prev ent any acts of suppression or oppression by the respondents No.4 to 7. From the above it can be seen that the property in dispute is described as Abal gre Dagal . The respondent Nos.4 to 7 in the writ petition do not dispute the right of the w rit petitioners in the landed property described as Abalgre Dagal but the whol e dispute between the parties to be a dispute regarding the identify of the said property. The writ petitioners apart from obtaining various interim orders indicated above also approached the District Council Court, Khasi Hills by way of two title sui ts, TS No.25/09 and 26/09 seeking various reliefs against the appellants in the writ appeal with regard to the said property which is described as Abalgre Daga l and both the suits came to be filed on the same day, that is the day on which the writ petition was presented before this court, a conduct which is not very wholesome and we would not propose to examine the same at this stage any further . The District Council Court in the above mentioned suits passed two orders on 1 7-12-09 in substance restraining the writ appellants from entering into the suit schedule property or extract mineral coal. In the background of the above mentioned facts we are of the opinion that the wr it petition itself is required to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner s have already availed a more comprehensive remedy which is more appropriate in the context of the disputed questions of fact regarding the title and possession of the immoveable property. However, mere dismissal of the writ petition at the admission stage and consequential dismissal of the appeal would leave the parti es in a situation where the writ petitioner would have the benefit of the interi m injunction passed in the above mentioned two suits. We are, therefore, of the opinion, having regard to the nature of the dispute th at both the parties in the above mentioned suits, who are the appellants and res pondent Nos.6 to 8 in the present appeal, be directed not to enter into the abov e mentioned disputed property or extract mineral coal therein until appropriate orders in this regard are passed by the District Council Court, after hearing th e parties. It is ordered accordingly. However, in view of the dispute regarding the identity of the above mentioned pr operty Mr SS Dey, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr N Dutta, lear ned senior counsel for the respondent Nos.6 to 8 tentatively agree that for the purpose of this order the property be described as it was described in the inter locutory orders dated 17-12-09 which runs as follows :- SCHEDULE North :- Mandalagatok to Khangshangram stream down to Riangsi up to Swalnapram t o Shittheshru to Umsekbisik then to Chireng-Bosak to Dadubisik stream then to Bo rshrong to Dangatbisik stream then to Matsha Khongram Akatok here there is one b oundary stone and from Matsha Kiongram to Nengshrang stream then to Chibananda stream to Nengsynning stream to Sushkol up to Wah Ryndi adjacent to the clan lan d of Ronghugre and Thadmari. East :- From Guwang Mendil-pathar up to Angal Sohrembisik stream then to Nengmes engbisik stream to Dektacho straight to Nengmisingh stream to Gelsangma stream d own to Domisal Agatok then to Dambo Bisik up to Umthing stream then to Abakbri s tream to Abakri hillock to Bordakjaphang up to Mandal Kakadok here there is one boundary stone and also bounded by the land of the Mawbon stone and also bounded by the land of the Mawbon and Songsak clans. South :- From Riangsi up to Mikok stream, Rongshiangbri and Guwang Maandipathar. West :- From Wah Rynsi to Dawel stream up to the pillar down to Nengrang stream again down to Wah Riangshi bounded by the land of Nimai Nokma Walpangram and the land of Rongden-Ronga. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. As a consequence the WP(C) No.319 (SH)/09 as well as the MC No.230/2010 also stand disposed of.