Mr. Shri Lungkhothang Singson vs The State Of Manipur Represented ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 128 Mani

JOHN
TELEN KOM
Digitally signed by
                                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
JOHN TELEN KOM                                          AT IMPHAL
Date: 2021.06.21
12:19:31 +05'30'                                        WP(C) NO.725 of 2010

                                 Mr. Shri Lungkhothang Singson, aged about 70 years, s/o Late
                                 Siakpu Singson, Chief of Lungthulien Village, Tipaimukh Sub-
                                 Division, P.O. & P.S. Tipaimukh District Churachandpur, Manipur.


                                                                                       ....... Petitioner
                                                                - Versus -
                                 1. The State of Manipur represented by the Chief Secretary,
                                    Government of Manipur.
                                 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur District, Manipur.
                                 3. Mr. Paukhomawi, S/o Late Paulienmang Singson, Chief of
                                    Senvon Hill village, P.O. & P.S. Parbung,         Tipaimukh Sub-
                                    Division, District Churachandpur, Manipur.


                                                                                    .... Respondents

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.N. Surendrajit, Advt.

                                 For the Respondent/s       :       Mr. Phungyo Zingkhei, Advt.
                                                                    Mr.S. Nepolean, GA.


                                 Date of reserved           :       29.04.2021

                                 Date of Judgment & Order   :       17.06.2021




           Wpc no.725 of 2010.                                                                    Page 1
                                             JUDGMENT & ORDER
                                                 (CAV)

[1]                   The writ petition was originally filed by the petitioner Lungkhothang

Singson seeking to quash the order dated 30.6.2010 passed by the Deputy

Commissioner, Churachanpur in Hill Revision Case No. 2 of 2010 alleging that

his father was the recorded Chief of Lungthulien Village and while he was unable

to function as Chief of the Village, the father of the petitioner allowed the

petitioner to function as the chief of the village under an authorization letter dated

27.2.1989. Since the date of expiry of the father of the petitioner on 05.03.1989,

the petitioner being the eldest son, he has been functioning as the Chief of

Lungthulien village without any interruption and his name has also been recorded

as the Chief of the village by the Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated

11.02.2010. However, the third respondent, who is the resident of Renkai village

and the grandson of former Chief of Senvon village filed a petition before the

Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur challenging the order of recording the

name of the petitioner as Chief of the Lungthulien village and obtained an order

of stay on 30.6.2010, thereby staying the operation of the order dated 11.02.2010

passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Tipaimukh. Challenging the said order

dated 30.06.2010, the petitioner Lungkhothnag Singson filed the writ petition.

Wpc no.725 of 2010. Page 2 [2] Pending writ petition, Lungkhuthang Singson died and kamminlun

Singson was added as the second petitioner. According to the second petitioner,

he inherited the Chiefship of Lungthulien village from his grandfather late

Lungkhothang Singson through his father Sehkholal Singson. It is stated that

since the father of the second petitioner has been incapable of being the Chief

of the said Lungthulien village due to his ill-health and by customary law, the right

and title of Chiefship was inherited in the family through the male lineage.

Accordingly, the right and title of the Chiefship of Lungthulien village has been

transferred by Sehkholal Singson to the second petitioner by way of deed of

transfer of Chiefship on 03.10.2016 and accordingly, the second petitioner is

proceeding with the writ petition.

[3] The power of attorney holder of the third respondent filed affidavit-

in-opposition on 31.5.2013 stating that the real dispute between the original

petitioner and the third respondent is in respect of the land and title thereto and

other rights pertaining to the office of Chiefship etc. The original petitioner ought

to have gone to the Civil Court for establishing his right and title. It is stated that

the Senvon Hill village is Kuki Tribal village established in or about 1906 with

Kamkholun as the Founder Chief. Though the village has its hamlet/machets

such as Lungthulien, Rovokot, Tipaimukh, Sipuikom and Sitam having separate

village authority each, there is no system of having separate Chief of such sub-

Wpc no.725 of 2010. Page 3 villages comprised therein. All these villages are under the high Administrative

control and supervision of the Chief of the Senvon village in the administration

and management of these villages according to the Kuki custom and usage.

[4] It is stated that on the death of Kamkholun, Chief of Senvon village,

his eldest son Chekang succeeded him to the office of Chief and after his death,

his eldest son, Lungkhopao and on the death of his eldest son paulienmang

being the heir-successor by custom became the Chief of Senvon village and at

present, the third respondent, eldest son of the said paulienmang is the Chief of

Senvon village vide order date 30.7.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner,

Churachandpur and his name was recorded in the relevant Touzi Book by the

Sub Divisional Officer, Tipaimukh.

[5] According to the third respondent, when the said Lungkhopao had

been discharging and carrying out the function and duties of the Chief of Senvon

village, the biggest Kuki village ever established and he allowed and permitted

the said Seiphu Singson, second son of the said Kamkholun, the great-great

grandfather of the third respondent to assist him in the administration and

management of the village relating to the collection and payment of hill house

tax to the Government. Taking advantage of the situation, the said Seiphu

Singson somehow managed to get his name recorded in the relevant Touzi book

as the Chief of Lungthulien village and wrongly shown at serial No. 10 in the list

Wpc no.725 of 2010. Page 4 of the village in Southern Circle West Sub Division, Thanglon tamenglong Circle

No. 3 in collusion with the local authorities of that circle while the Senvon village

is shown at Serial No. 24, without the knowledge and behind the back of the

Chief of Senvon village.

[6] It is also stated that said Seiphu Singson along with his family

members, including the original petitioner, left Lungthulien village and shifted to

a village called Bethel, situated within the sub-division Churachandpur during the

ethnic clashes between Kuki and Hmar that took place in 1960. They have

abandoned their rights and titles to the land and settle therein permanently and

Seiphu died in 1989 and with the passage of time the original petitioner

Lungkhothang Singson became the Chief of Bethel village and he is still

discharging the duties and functions as such Chief thereof.

[7] According to the third respondent, Lungthulien village being a sub-

village of the main Senvon village ceased to exist since 1960 in the manner as

stated above and where after, the third respondent before him his predecessor-

in-interest have taken absolute control of the said sub-village and since then they

have been in exclusive physical possession and enjoyment thereof by doing

cultivation in arable areas, maintaining and preserving forest and extracting

forest produce thereform and by permitting his villagers to construct residential

houses thereon till date, adversely to the knowledge of the said Seiphu and the

Wpc no.725 of 2010. Page 5 original petitioner. In fact, the original petitioner is no longer the resident of

Lungthulien village.

[8] In the affidavit, the third respondent denied that the original

petitioner became the Chief of Lungthulien village on the death of his father and

on his application for recording his name as a Chief of that village, the SDO,

Tipaimukh granted the order dated 11.2.2010 without giving notice and behind

the back of the Chief of Senvon village. Since the second respondent alone is

the competent authority to recognize or de-recognise Chiefship in Hill villages,

the said order of SDO dated 11.02.2010 is null and void and being one passed

without any legislative competence and jurisdiction. Accordingly, the third

respondent filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner for setting aside

the order passed by the SDO. The Deputy Commissioner, by the impugned order

of the SDO, Tipaimukh in Hill Revision Case No. 2 of 2010.

[9] After impleading the second petitioner, the second petitioner has

filed a rejoinder affidavit to the affidavit filed by the third respondent stating that

the third respondent is a stranger to Lungthulien village and has no right or

interest whatsoever in the Chiefship of the village. Furthermore, when it is

undisputed that none of the petitioner's siblings have raised any objections, the

third respondent has no authority at all to raise the issue that the second

petitioner being the youngest son has no right to Chiefship of the village.

Wpc no.725 of 2010. Page 6 [10] The third respondent filed reply affidavit stating that the second

petitioner never inherited the Chiefship of Lungthulien village from his

grandfather late Lungkhothang Singson. It is recognized and recorded that the

third respondent as the Chief of Senvon and Lungthulien village is one of the

machet villages of senvon and there is no any Chief other than the third

respondent. It is stated that as per the Kuki customary law, the Chiefship is

inherited by the natural son from his natural father and Sheikholal father of the

second petitioner has inherited the Chiefship of Bethel village from

Lungkhothang Singson, who was the original writ petitioner. The question of the

second petitioner claiming to be the Chief of Lungthulien village has no

substance and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

[11] Assailing the impugned order dated 30.6.2010 staying the order of

the Sub Divisional Officer, Tipaimukh whereby transferring the Chiefship of

Lungthulien village in favour of the original petitioner Lungkhothang Singson, the

learned counsel for the second petitioner contended that the second petitioner

inherited the Chiefship of Lungthulien village from his grandfather late

Lungkhothang Singson through his father Sehkholal Singh and since the father

of the second petitioner incapable of being the Chief of Lungthulien village due

to his ill-health and by customary law, the right and title of Chiefship was inherited

in the family through the male lineage. Accordingly, the right and title of the

Wpc no.725 of 2010. Page 7 Chiefship of Lungthulien village has been transferred by sehkholal Singson to

the second petitioner by way of deed of transfer of Chiefship dated 03.10.2016.

[12] The learned counsel further submitted that the third respondent is

a stranger to the Lungthulien village and he has no right or interest whatsoever

in the Chiefship of Lungthulien village and that the third respondent obtained the

impugned order of stay behind the back of the grandfather of the second

petitioner and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law

and the same is liable to be set aside and that the right and title of the Chiefship

of second petitioner in respect of Lungthulien village has to be confirmed.

[13] Per contra, the learned counsel for the third respondent submitted

that the second petitioner never inherited the Chiefship of Lungthulien village

from his grandfather and that it is recognized and recorded that the third

respondent as the Chief of Senvon village by the competent authorities and

Lungthulien village is one of the machet villages of Senvon and that there is no

any Chief except the third respondent. He would submit that in fact, the father of

the second petitioner namely Sheikholal Singson, son of Lungkhothang Singson

is the Chief of Bethel village and as per the Kuki customary law, the Chiefship is

inherited by the natural son from his natural father and that the father of the

second petitioner has inherited the Chiefship of Bethel village from

Wpc no.725 of 2010. Page 8 Lungkhothang Singson, who was the original writ petitioner and not Lungthulien

village.

[14] The learned counsel for the third respondent further submitted that

both the father and son cannot be a Chief at the same period of time and that

the question of the second petitioner claiming to be the Chief of Lungthulien

village has no basis at all.

[15] Heard the learned counsel for the respondent State also.

[16] This Court considered the submissions made by the learned

counsel for parties and also perused the materials available on record.

[17] The writ petition was originally filed by Lungkhothang singson

challenging the order dated 30.6.2010, thereby staying the transfer of Chiefship

of Lungthulien village in favour of Lungkhothang Singson dated 11.2.2010 of the

SDO, Tipaimukh.

[18] It appears that by the order dated 11.2.2010, the SDO, Tipaimukh

ordered transfer of Chiefship of Lungthulien village in favour of the original writ

petitioner Lungkhothang Singson. Aggrieved by such transfer, the third

respondent herein filed Hill Revenue Case No. 2 of 2010 before the Deputy

Commissioner, Churachandpur. By the order dated 30.6.2010 impugned in the

writ petition, the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur stayed the order dated

11.2.2010 of the SDO, Tipaimukh. Admittedly, the said order of stay has been

Wpc no.725 of 2010. Page 9 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur without notice to the

original writ petitioner Lungkhothang Singson. When the order transferring the

Chiefship of Lungthulien village was issued in favour of the original writ petitioner,

he should be heard before staying the said order.

[19] According to the third respondent, there are as may as five various

villages such as Lungthulien, Tipaimukh, Sitam, Sepuikon and Robokot lying and

comprised in Senvon village of which the third respondent is the Chief. All the

above five villages are under the high administrative control, supervision of the

Chief of Senvon village.

[20] Since the third respondent claims that Lungthulien village is one of

the machet village of Senvon and the third respondent is the Chief of Senvon

village and also there is no Chief of Lungthulien village, the said disputed

question of fact, cannot be decided in this writ petition. That apart, the second

petitioner now claims that the impugned order stay transferring the Chiefship of

Lungthulien village has been passed without hearing the original petitioner, who

is the grandfather of the second petitioner. When the second petitioner claims

that he is the Chiefship of Lungthulien village and the third respondent is a

stranger to Lungthulien village, it would be appropriate to remit the matter to the

SDO concerned to decide the factual aspects of the matter in detail upon hearing

the parties afresh. As stated supra, while staying the order dated 11.02.2010 of

Wpc no.725 of 2010. Page 10 the SDO, Tipaimukh, the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur has not heard

the original writ petitioner and his families. It is also the say of the third

respondent that the second petitioner never inherited the Chiefship of

Lungthulien village from his grandfather late Lungkhothang Singson. In such

view of the matter, it would be appropriate to direct the matter to be heard by

the SDO, Tipaimukh and pass appropriate order in this regard, as two parties

claim Chiefship of Lungthulien village.

[21] Accordingly,

(a) the writ petition is allowed and the stay order dated

30.06.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner,

Churachandpur District in Hill Revision Case No. 2 of 2010

and the order dated 11.2.2010 passed by the SDO,

Tipaimukh are set aside and the matter is remitted to the

SDO, Tipaimukh.

(b) The SDO, Tipaimukh is directed to issue notice to both

the second writ petitioner and third respondent calling upon

them to establish their case of Chiefship of Lungthulien

village and upon hearing both parties and upon affording

opportunity of hearing to both sides, the SDO, Tipaimukh is

direct to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in

Wpc no.725 of 2010. Page 11 such regard. Such an exercise shall be done within a period

of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order.

(c) No costs.

[22] The Registry is directed to issue copy of this order to both parties

and other Government officials concerned to their whatsapp/e.mail.

JUDGE

FR/NFR

John kom

Wpc no.725 of 2010. Page 12