DONBOK BUAM AND ORS. v. THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS.
Court: High Court of Meghalaya
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. S. THANGKHIEW
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Meghalaya judgment dated 2026-04-20. DONBOK BUAM AND ORS. v. THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Serial No. 36 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG MC(WPC) No. 127 of 2026 in WP(C) No. 92 of 2026 Date of Decision: 20. 04. 2026 1. Shri Donbok Buam 2. Smti Diya Buam 3. Smti Shailina Buam 4. Smti Rutis Buam 5. Smti Gravelford Buam 6. Smti Kalpana Buam 7. Smti Chwadaka Buam 8. Shri Wip Buam, 9. Shri Blip Buam, 10. Smti June Buam ….. Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s) Versus 1. State of Meghalaya represented by The Chief Secretary. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, West Jaintia Hills District, Jowai 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Amlarem Sub-Division 4. The District Tourism Officer, West Jaintia Hills District, Jowai 5. The Superintendent of Police, West Jaintia Hills District, Jowai 6. The Officer in Charge, Amlarem Police Station, West Jaintia Hills District. 7. The Dorbar Shnong Skhenpyrsit, Amlarem Sub-Division, West Jaintia Hills District, Represented by its Waheh Shnong (Headman) 8.
Shri Rakesh Kyndait alias Rakesh Kyndait, R/o Skhenpyrsit Village, Amlarem Sub-Division, West Jaintia Hills District 9. Shri Smenlang Kyndait alias Smen Kyndait, R/o Skhenpyrsit Village, Amlarem Sub-Division, West Jaintia Hills District. 10. The Dorbar Shnong Skhentalang, Amlarem Sub-Division, Represented by its Waheh Shnong (Headman) …. Respondent(s) Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s): Mr. R. Pahsyntiew, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N. D. Chullai, AAG with Mr. E. R. Chyne, GA (For R 1-6) Mr. S. Sen, Adv. with Mr. M. U. Ahmed, Adv. (For R 7-10) i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc: ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No in press: JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) 1. This is an application for impleading Raij Buam as the respondent No. 11, and Smti Treli Sumer as the respondent No. 12, in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. R.
Pahsyntiew, learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants submits that the two parties are necessary to be impleaded, inasmuch as, the Raij Buam is the lawful owner of the stretch of land adjoining the Phe Phe Falls, and the other portion is under the private ownership of one Smti Treli Sumer. 3. Accordingly, Raij Buam represented by Shri Sumiar Buam, Lyngdoh of Raij Buam is arrayed as the respondent No. 11, and Smti Treli Sumer as the respondent No. 12, in the instant proceedings. 4. Mr. R. Pahsyntiew, learned counsel has also made an additional prayer that he may be allowed to correct the typographical error, as far as the name of the respondent No. 8, is concerned. 5. Prayer is allowed, Registry to make the necessary additions in the Cause Title. 6. Misc. Case is allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Meghalaya 20. 04. 2026 “V. Lyndem-PS”
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.