Assembly passed apartment ownership bill

Opposition leader Donkupar Roy
Opposition leader Donkupar Roy

SHILLONG, MAR 21: The Meghalaya Apartment Ownership Bill, 2016 was passed in the assembly on Monday after opposition leader decided to withdraw the amendment motion on condition that there should be no bar for lower court’s intervention.

Before passing the bill, opposition leader Donkupar Roy sought deletion of Para 33 of the bill which states – “No civil court shall have any jurisdiction to entertain or decide any question relating to matters arising under this Act.”

Roy said the bill stated that there is likelihood of arbitrariness and nepotism in which affected persons has nowhere to go to appeal and geared that the bill may face similar fate like Para 7 of the 10th Schedule, which was strike down by the Supreme Court.

Roy was of the opinion that instead of waiting for the court to step in he said  let this para be deleted and allow aggrieved persons to approach the court.

In line with Roy’s proposal, HSPDP chief Ardent M Basaiawmoit suggested that the bill be referred to the select committee since the opposition members are yet to study the bill. In her reply, Meghalaya urban affairs minister Ampareen Lyngdoh said, “The Para 33 of the said bill which is proposed for deletion by the mover is a standard clause which is normally available in most of the acts.”

“Despite this provision existing in many of the acts, it ‘does not’ bar any person or party aggrieved by any provisions of the said act to approach any higher courts for redressal of their grievances,” she said. Citing examples on the existence of such provisions, she said that a similar provision is also there in section 12 of the Meghalaya Land Transfer Act, 1971 and is also seen in the Punjap Agreement Ownership Act, 1995 under section 35.

Not satisfied with the minister’s reply, Roy however sought more clarification as to what is wrong if court have jurisdiction on the matter.

While intervening in the debate, chief minister Mukul Sangma said, “When we say civil courts, it doesn’t include the High Court and Supreme Court. There is still space available for judicial intervention… the provision is still there and we need to go by this interpretation.”

Reiterating that there is no bar for court’s intervention, Sangma said, “By putting this provision, it will at least discourage many litigation as an offshoot of challenging every decision of the authorities,” adding “The approach is more like striking a balance.”

While withdrawing his motion, Roy however urged the government to allow lower courts to also have jurisdiction to ensure that more people can approach the court for justice. According to Roy, if only the High Court and Supreme Court are allowed to have jurisdiction, it will only open the way for rich people while poor people will suffer and be discriminated.-By Our Reporter

You May Also Like

More From Author

+ There are no comments

Add yours