Manipur High Court
Shri Wahengbam Somorendro Singh vs Shri Wahengbam Kunjo Singh on 3 March, 2021
Item No. 19
(Through Video Conferencing)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
CRP (C.R.P. ART. 227) No. 2 of 2021
1. Shri Wahengbam Somorendro Singh, aged about 55 years, S/o
Late W. Achouba Singh, resident of Sagolband Wahengbam
Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin-
795 001.
......Petitioner
- Versus -
1. Shri Wahengbam Kunjo Singh, aged about 78 years, S/o late
W. Achouba Singh resident of Sagolbang Wahengbam Leikai,
P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur, - 795 001.
2. Shri Wahengbam Kamini Kumar Singh aged about 60 years,
S/o Late W. Achouba Singh of Sagolband Wahengbam Leikai,
P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur. (Now
deceased) represented by his L.R.s namely :-
i) Wahengbam (O) Memma Devi, aged about 47 years,
W/O Wahengbam Kamini Kumar Singh of Sagolband
Wahengbam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur.
ii) Wahengbam Sharmila Devi, aged about 26 years, d/o
Wahengbam Kamini Kumar Singh of Sagolband
Wahengbam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur.
iii) Wahengbam Micky Devi, aged about 25 years d/o
Wahengbam Kamini Kumar Singh of Sagolband
Wahengbam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur.
iv) Wahengbam Bulu Meitei, aged about 23 years, s/o
Wahengbam Kamini Kumar Singh of Sagolband
Wahengbam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur.
v) Wahengbam Mika Devi, aged about 20 years, d/o
Wahengbam Kamini Kumar Singh of Sagolband
Wahengbam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur.
CRP (C.R.P. ART. 227) No. 2 of 2021 Page 1
3. Wahengbam Dinachandra Singh, aged about 69 years S/o Late
W. Achouba Singh of Sagolband Wahengbam Leikai, P.O. &
P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur.
4. Smt. Wahengbam (N) R.K. (O)Gambhini Devi, aged about 80
years, W/o Late R.K. Laksana Singh of Lilong at present P.W.D.
Quarter No. 5, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District,
Manipur.
5. Smt. Wahengbam (N) Haobam (O) Memma Devi, aged about
72 years W/o Haobam Kumar Singh of Lalambung Makhong,
Takhellambam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
6. Smt. Wahengbam (N) Thoudam (O) Rupobati Devi, aged about
58 years, W/o Late Th. Kulla Singh of Thangmeiband Hijam
Dewan Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
7. Smt. Wahengbam (N) Waikhom (O) Manjuri Devi, aged about
58 years W/o Waikhom Irabot Singh of Ningom Thongjao,
Kitana Panung, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
8. Smt. Wahengbam (N) Thoudam (O) Tombi Devi, aged about
54 years W/o (L) Thoudam Ibomcha Singh of Wangoi Longjam
Leikai P.O. & P.S. Wangoi, Imphal West District, Manipur.
......Principal Respondents
9. Wahengbam (O) Pramodini Devi, W/o Wahengbam
Somorendro Singh;
10. Wahengbam Monika Devi, D/o Wahengbam Somorendro Singh;
11. Wahengbam Rojita Devi, D/o Wahengbam Somorendro Singh;
12. Wahengbam Nikhel Singh, S/o Wahengbam Somorendro Singh
- Proforma Respondents No. 9, 10, 11 & 12 are of Sagolband
Wahengbam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
.....Proforma Respondents
CRP (C.R.P. ART. 227) No. 2 of 2021 Page 2
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR
For the petitioner : Mr. P. Tomcha, Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. Ch. Dhananjoy, Advocate
Date of Order : 03.03.2021
ORDER
[1] The petitioner filed Revenue Revision Case No. 11 of 2020 before
the Revenue Tribunal, Imphal West, under Section 95 of the Manipur Land
Revenue & Land Reforms Act, 1960, challenging the Notice dated 20.02.2020
issued by the Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal West (Central), in Demarcation
Case No. 66/SDC/IW(C) in respect of the homestead land under Patta No.
85/1272 (old) 2262 (new), covered by C.S. Dag No. 16129, admeasuring
0.0280 acres, situated at Village No. 85, Sagolband, Imphal West. By order
dated 09.11.2020, the Revenue Tribunal disposed of the said case with a
direction to the Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal West (Central), to carry out the
demarcation after notifying the interested persons/parties. Aggrieved thereby,
the petitioner filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
[2] Heard Mr. P. Tomcha, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, and Mr. Ch. Dhananjoy, learned senior counsel appearing for the
contesting respondents No. 1 - 8.
[3] Mr. P. Tomcha, learned counsel, would contend that the order
under revision is unsustainable in law as the petitioner was not given an
opportunity to put forth his case. He would assert that the case was decided
without even hearing the petitioner's arguments.
CRP (C.R.P. ART. 227) No. 2 of 2021 Page 3
[4] Perusal of the material placed on record demonstrates that the
revision case was listed on 02.03.2020 initially and on that day, the Revenue
Tribunal stayed the impugned Notice dated 20.02.2020 while issuing notice to
the respondents. The next date fixed for appearance and submission of the
case record was 16.03.2020. On 16.03.2020, the Tribunal noted the presence
of the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for some of the
respondents and adjourned the matter to 20.04.2020, directing reissuance of
notice to the respondents. On 20.04.2020, the Revenue Tribunal noted the
absence of the parties due to the National Lockdown owing to the Covid - 19
Pandemic and adjourned the matter to 29.07.2020. Again, on that date, the
Tribunal adjourned the matter to 03.11.2020 owing to the National Lockdown
and directed reissuance of notice. On 03.11.2020, the Tribunal noted that
neither the petitioner nor his counsel was present at 01:00 p.m., when the
case was put up for hearing, though the learned counsel for the respondents
was present. The Tribunal further noted that the Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal
West (Central), had already submitted the case record and proceeded to hear
the learned counsel for the respondents. The case was posted for judgment
and order on 09.11.2020. The impugned order was passed on that date.
Perusal thereof reflects that no further hearing took place on that day.
[5] In effect, the petitioner was not heard prior to the disposal of the
case but his challenge to the Notice dated 20.02.2020, whereunder the Sub-
Deputy Collector, Imphal West (Central), proposed to undertake the impugned
demarcation, stood nullified as the Revenue Tribunal directed such
demarcation to be completed.
CRP (C.R.P. ART. 227) No. 2 of 2021 Page 4
[6] During the year 2020, the hearing of cases before Courts and
Tribunals was severely crippled by the onset of the Covid - 19 Pandemic.
Instructions were put in place by High Courts all over the country limiting the
hearing of cases before the Subordinate Courts and Tribunals. Similar such
instructions were put in place by this Court,vide Notification No. 63 dated
02.06.2020 and Notification No. 64 dated 10.06.2020. The latter notification
made it clear that unless both the parties moved a joint application for taking
up a pending case, it was not to be considered for listing. Despite this clear
instruction, the Revenue Tribunal seems to have adjourned the subject
revision case from time to time without any joint application being filed.
Further, though Courts and Tribunals were advised not to pass adverse orders
in the absence of parties and their counsel during the Covid-19 lockdown
period, the Tribunal went ahead and decided the revision case despite noting
the absence of the petitioner and his counsel.
[7] Apart from being in clear disregard of the specific instructions
issued by this Court, the procedure adopted by the Tribunal was in flagrant
violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner's challenge to the
impugned Notice dated 20.02.2020 was not even addressed on its merits as
he had no opportunity to put forth his arguments though counsel. The order
under revision dated 09.11.2020 is therefore liable to be set aside on this short
ground.
[8] The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed, setting aside the
order dated 09.11.2020 passed by the Revenue Tribunal, Imphal West, in
Revenue Revision Case No. 11 of 2020 and remanding the said case to the
Revenue Tribunal, Imphal West, for consideration afresh.
CRP (C.R.P. ART. 227) No. 2 of 2021 Page 5
Given the fact that the situation has improved vastly in the
context of the pandemic and physical hearing of cases may be resumed
shortly, the Tribunal shall endeavour to dispose of the revision, after giving
due opportunity of hearing to both the parties and in accordance with law,
expeditiously and preferably within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order.
No order as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
bipin
Digitally
Yumk signed by
Yumkham
.
ham Rother
Date:
2021.03.04
Rother 11:27:44
+05'30'
CRP (C.R.P. ART. 227) No. 2 of 2021 Page 6
