Manipur High Court
Shri Akoijam Sanatomba Singh vs The State Of Manipur on 28 September, 2021
SHOUGRA Digitally signed [1]
by
KPAM SHOUGRAKPAM
DEVANANDA
DEVANAN SINGH IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
DA SINGH Date: 2021.09.28
12:23:21 +01'00'
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 250 of 2019
Shri Akoijam Sanatomba Singh, aged about 57 years, S/.o Shri
Akoijam/Koijam Heramot Singh of Thoubal Wangmataba, P.O. &
P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur.
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur, through the Commissioner/ Secy.
(MAHUD), Office at Old Secretariat - South Block, Government
of Manipur, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur
- 795001.
2. The District Collector/ Deputy Commissioner of Thoubal, Office
at Thoubal Athokpam, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal District,
Manipur-795138.
3. The Executive Officer, Thoubal Municipal Council, Office at
Thoubal Wangmataba, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal District,
Manipur, Pin - 795138.
... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KH. NOBIN SINGH
For the petitioner ∷ Shri Juno Rahman, Advocate
For the respondents ∷ Shri Y. Rameshchandra, Advocate &
Smt. L. Monomalal Devi, Govt. Advocate
Date of Hearing ∷ 17-09-2021
Date of Judgment & Order ∷ 28-09-2021
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
[1] Heard Shri Juno Rahman, learned Advocate appearing for the
petitioner; Shri Y. Rameshchandra, learned Advocate appearing for the
respondent No.3 and Smt. L. Monomala Devi, learned Government
Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 2.
WP(C) No. 250 of 2019 Contd.../-
[2]
[1] The validity and correctness of the order dated 25-07-2018
issued by the Secretary (MAHUD), Government of Manipur is under
challenge in this writ petition.
[2] The subject matter in issue relates to the allotment of shops in
place of the petitioner's original shop standing over his homestead land
being dismantled for expansion of the NH-39 or for that matter, the
payment of compensation in place thereof. According to the petitioner, this
is the fourth round of litigation in respect of the said issue.
[3.1] According to the petitioner, his father, Shri K. Heramot Singh was
the absolute owner in possession of the land bearing Patta No.1133(Old)/
52 (New) covered by C.S Dag No. 217(0ld)/ 2056 (New) of 0.0040
Hectares (or 0.01 Acre) of Village-28 Thoubal Achouba. The allotment
order thereof was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal on
20-04-1987. Out of the said land, the petitioner's father executed a gift
deed dated 28-08-1996 by which a portion thereof measuring an area of
21.75 ft x 6 ft (=130.5 Sq. ft) was gifted to him, because of which the
petitioner's name was entered into the land records as the co-pattadar.
[3.2] On 14-07-2008, the Principal Secretary (Revenue) Government
of Manipur issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 for the expansion of NH-39 by which the land of the petitioner's
father measuring 0.0032 hectare was shown to have been affected and the
land measuring 0.0008 hectare occupied by the petitioner was alleged to
have been left out (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner's Land"). The
WP(C) No. 250 of 2019 Contd.../-
[3]
petitioner's father submitted a representation dated 29-11-2008 to the
District Collector/ Land Acquisition, Thoubal paying for maintaining the
area of his land holding as 0.0040 hectares but the same was no
considered by the concerned respondents.
[3.3] The Executive Officer, Thoubal Municipal Council issued a
Notification dated 20-05-2009 informing that the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the shop owners and the State
Government represented by the Addl. Secretary (MAHUD) would be
signed on 25-05-2009 and 26-05-2009. The said MOU was signed at the
intervention of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister in a meeting held on
07-01-2009 in the presence of the Joint Secretary (MAHUD), the
Chairperson and the Executive Officer, Thoubal Municipal Council. After
the signing of the said MOU, the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal with
Thoubal Police initiated the eviction process on 28-12-2009 dismantling
the shop "Hindu Hotel" of the petitioner thereby losing his means of
livelihood and right to life. The petitioner, having lost everything in the
mayhem, submitted a representation dated 10-01-2010, followed by the
representation dated 09-03-2010 for allotment of a shop at the Thoubal
Market, which was being newly constructed.
[3.4] Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents,
the petitioner and his father approached the Hon'ble High Court by way of
two writ petitions being WP(C) No.81 of 2010 and WP(C) No.188 of 2010
which were disposed of on 14-09-2010 and 24-08-2010 respectively with
WP(C) No. 250 of 2019 Contd.../-
[4]
the direction to the MAHUD; the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal and the
Director of Settlement & Land Records, Manipur for disposal of their
representations to be submitted afresh by them. Pursuant to the order
dated 14-09-2010 passed by the High Court, the District Collector/ Land
Acquisition, Thoubal addressed a letter dated 03-03-2012 to the
Commissioner (Revenue), Government of Manipur stating that the area of
the patta land was O.0040 hectare, of which 0.0008 hectare was left out
from the acquisition process, for which he was requested to issue a
corrigendum to that effect so that the acquiring Department might be
moved for payment of compensation in respect of the left out area. By that
time, the construction of the new Thoubal market was almost complete but
the petitioner's name did not figure in the list of names of the allotment of
shops. In compliance with the order dated 24-08-2010 passed in WP(C)
188 of 2010, the DC/Collector, Land Acquisition, Thoubal issued an order
dated 03-03-2012 stating that the rectification process would be taken up
with the Commissioner (Revenue), Government of Manipur for issuing a
Corrigendum and that the petitioner was advised to move the competent
authority for allotment of shop, since the Collector, Land Acquisition was
not concerned with it. Accordingly, the representation dated 09-03-2010
was disposed of. Thereafter, the Revenue Department issued a
Corrigendum dated 24-03-2012 showing the original-land as 0.0040
hectare in the name of the petitioner's father. In the meantime, the Addl.
Secretary (MAHUD) issued an order dated 17-01-2012 to the effect that
the request made by the petitioner in its representation could not be
WP(C) No. 250 of 2019 Contd.../-
[5]
accepted and accordingly, the representation submitted by him stood
disposed of.
[3.5] Being aggrieved by the order dated 17-01-2012 of the MAHUD
Department, the petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.236 of 2013
praying for quashing it and to direct the respondents to allot a shop in the
new Thoubal Market. The shops were required to be allotted depending
upon the area of land acquired by the State Government, as had been
done in the case of Th. Mema Devi and Yanglem Mangijao Singh. The
petitioner was being discriminated by the authorities for the reason best
known to them. The Hon'ble High Court, while disposing of the writ petition
and vide its order dated 25-10-2016, directed the authorities to consider
the representation, supported by the documents, in accordance with law.
On account of the failure to comply with this Court's order by the
respondents, the Contempt Case No.130 of 2017 came to be filed by the
peititoner whereupon the MAHUD Department issued an order dated 25-
07-2018 stating that the case of the petitioner was within the purview of the
land acquisition proceedings and the allotment of shops which was not
related to MAHUD Department.
[3.6] Being aggrieved by the said order dated 25-07-2018, the instant
writ petition has been filed on the inter-alia grounds that it was a mischief
on the part of the respondents to deny the petitioner a shop or plot
corresponding to the size of his land of 0.0040 hectare. If the MAHUD
Department was not involved in the allotment of shops, it should not have
WP(C) No. 250 of 2019 Contd.../-
[6]
said in its order dated 17-01-2012 that the petitioner's request/
representation for shop allotment could not be acceded as this would
amount to shifting of stance of the Government. The impugned order is
untenable as the petitioner is requesting for allotment of a shop under the
special deal with the Government. As the MAHUD Department has failed
to keep its side of the obligation/ deal, the petitioner's land should be
restituted to him. The MOU was signed by the Addl. Secretary (MAHUD),
representing the Government of Manipur on 25-05-2009 and 26-05-2009
and that too, at the intervention of the Hon'ble Chief Minister in a meeting
on 07-01-2009 in the presence of the Joint Secretary (MAHUD), the
Chairperson and the Executive Officer, Thoubal Municipal Council
assuring the affected pattadars that they would be allotted shops after the
construction of new market.
[4] An affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondent No.3 has
been filed stating that the name of the petitioner was entered in the record
of rights of the land in question as the co-pattadar only in the year 2010
vide Mutation Case No.40/AS&SO TB2 dated 11-01-2010 i.e., after the
shop had been dismantled by the State Government in the year 2009. But
the petitioner has concealed the said facts. No area of the land in question
namely "the subject land" was acquired by the Government from the
petitioner at any point of time. It is a fact that the left out 0.0008 hectare of
land was occupied by his father and not by the petitioner. So, the Revenue
Department issued the Corrigendum dated 24-03-2012 in the name of his
father and not in the name of the petitioner. The last portion of the said
WP(C) No. 250 of 2019 Contd.../-
[7]
order reads as follows:
"Send a copy of this order to SDO/Thoubal for causing service to
Ak. Heramot Singh, aged about 72 years, S/o (L) Ak. Chaoba
Singh of Thoubal Achouba, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal
District, Manipur"
The State Government had already acquired the whole area of
0.0040 hectares of the land from his father and the shop was dismantled
by the State Government on 28-12-2009. However, due to unintentional/
bonafide mistake, the area of land acquired by the Government was
mentioned as 0.0032 hectare. So, the compensation of the remaining area
of 0.0008 hectare of the land was later on paid to his father by issuing the
corrigendum dated 24-03-2012 issued by the Under Secretary (Revenue),
Government of Manipur. It has further been stated that no area of the land
in question namely, "the subject land" was acquired by the Government
from the petitioner at any point of time. The State Government signed the
MOU with all the shop owners including the father of the petitioner prior to
the eviction of shop on 28-12-2019 but it never signed any agreement
/MOU with the petitioner. It has also been reiterated that the name of the
petitioner was entered in the record of rights of the land as thee
co-pattadar only in the year 2010 vide Mutation Case No.40/AS&SO TB2
dated 11-01-2010 i.e., after the shop was dismantled by the State
Government in the year 2009. Two shops had already been allotted to his
father for being the affected land owners/ pattadars of the said land
acquisition process. The present writ petition is ill conceived, vague and
WP(C) No. 250 of 2019 Contd.../-
[8]
not maintainable and as such, the Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to
dismiss it with heavy cost. In fact, no cause of action has arisen for filing
the present writ petition by the petitioner. No counter affidavit has been
filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 & 2 but during the course of hearing,
Smt. L. Monomala, learned Government Advocate submitted that the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 would be adopted
by them.
[5] From the pleadings as aforesaid, the short question that arises for
consideration by this Court, is as to whether any land of the petitioner has
been acquired by the State Government for the purpose of expansion of
the NH-39 or not. If yes, what type of compensation that he will be entitled
to and in other words, whether he will be entitled to allotment of shops in
terms of the MOU dated 25-05-2009 and 26-05-2009 between the shop
owners and the State Government.
[6] The case of the petitioner, in short, is that his father was the owner
who was in possession of a land measuring an area of 0.0040 Hectares
at Village-28 Thoubal Achouba, as it was allotted to him vide order
20-04-1987 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal. His father gave
him a portion thereof, measuring an area or 21.75 ft x 6 ft (=130.5 Sq. ft),
by way of a gift deed dated 28-08-1996, because of which the petitioner's
name was entered in the record of rights as the co-pattadar. When the
lands were acquired by the Revenue Department under the provisions of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the expansion of the NH-39, only the
WP(C) No. 250 of 2019 Contd.../-
[9]
land of his father measuring 0.0032 hectare was shown to have been
affected and the land measuring 0.0008 hectare occupied by the petitioner
was found to be left out. His father raised an objection to the said
Notification by way of his representation dated 29-11-2008 which was
not considered by the respondents. Pursuant to a Notification dated
20-05-2009, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the land
owners/ shop owners and the State Government was inked on 25-05-2009
and 26-05-2009 whereby an assurance was given to them that they should
be allotted the shop plots. After the signing of the said MOU, the Deputy
Commissioner, Thoubal initiated the eviction process on 28-12-2009
dismantling the shop "Hindu Hotel" of the petitioner thereby losing his
means of livelihood and right to life. The petitioner, having lost everything
in the mayhem, submitted two representations dated 10-01-2010 and
dated 09-03-2010 for allotment of shop at the Thoubal Market, which was
being newly constructed. But he failed to get anything despite several
rounds of litigations before the High Court.
[7] It is well settled that when the land of a person is acquired by the
Government in accordance with, he is entitled to payment of
compensation. In the present case, the basis on which the petitioner has
claimed his ownership thereof, is the gift deed dated 28-08-1996 executed
by his father, a copy of which is filed along with the writ petition. On
perusal thereof, it is seen that the gift deed may have been signed on
28-08-1996 in the presence of the witness. But it is not clear as to when it
was registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Thoubal because there is
WP(C) No. 250 of 2019 Contd.../-
[10]
no any specific averment made in that regard by the petitioner in his writ
petition and from the copy of the said alleged gift deed which is on record,
the same appears to have been registered only on 14-12-2009 and the
Jamabandi was issued on 15-01-2010 pursuant to a mutation case
registered in the year, 2010. If that be the case, the stand of the
respondent No.3 as indicated in his affidavit, appears to be correct to the
extent that the name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records
as the co-pattadar only in the year, 2010, after his father's shop having
been dismantled by the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal. It has further
been stated in his affidavit that it is the petitioner's father who was the
owner of the land measuring 0.0040 hectare, for which compensations
including two shops have been given to him. According to him, the
petitioner is neither the owner of the said land nor has any of his lands
been acquired by the State Government. There is no any MOU being
signed between the State Government and the petitioner. Since the land
area of the petitioner's father being shown as 0.0032 in the Notification, it
was later rectified and that too, in the name of the petitioner's father and he
was paid compensation for the remaining area of 0.0008 hectare as well.
The petitioner is nowhere in the picture at all, when his father's land was
acquired by the State Government.
[8] In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, the averments made in the
writ petition were reiterated by him and the petitioner failed to produce any
document to show that his land had been acquired by the State
Government for the expansion of NH-39. All the documents produced by
WP(C) No. 250 of 2019 Contd.../-
[11]
the petitioners are in the name of or have something to do with his father. If
any of his lands has not been acquired by the State Government, the
question of payment of any compensation to him will not arise at all. All the
averments made by the petitioners as regards the transfer of property by
way of a gift deed being executed by his father, have been denied to the
extent that it was alleged to have been executed, only after the land of his
father was acquired by the State Government. A disputed question of facts
has arisen as regards the date on which the gift deed was registered. Such
a disputed questions of facts cannot be gone into by this Court in the
exercise of its power and jurisdiction conferred under the provisions of
Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions including the ones
rendered in State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhawani Singh & ors, 1993 Supp (1)
SCC 306 and Visakhapatnam Port Trust & anr. Vs. Ram Bahadu
Thakur Pvt. LTd. & ors, (1997) 4 SCC 582 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that the High Court shall not go into any question arising
out of the disputed facts. Therefore, it is not proper for this Court to decide
such a disputed question of facts in a summary proceeding as
contemplated in Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
[9] One of the points which the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has emphasised, is that this is the fourth round of litigation, as
the petitioner failed to get any relief in the earlier rounds. It may be noted
that in the earlier rounds of litigation, the High Court has not gone into the
merits of the case, in the sense that no finding has been arrived at by the
WP(C) No. 250 of 2019 Contd.../-
[12]
High Court as regards the issue whether the petitioner's land has, in fact,
been acquired by the State Government for the expansion of the NH-39. In
other words, the claim of the petitioner that his land gifted by his father,
has been acquired by the State Government, had not been considered by
the High Court in the earlier rounds of litigations. Only the innocuous
orders were issued by the High Court, in the sense that all that had been
directed by the High Court, is that the petitioner should submit fresh
representation, supported by documents, which should be considered by
the concerned authorities in accordance with law. All his representations
had been rejected by the concerned authorities.
[10] In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in (2010) 10 SCC 165, Shyam Telelink Ltd. Vs. Union of India and
(2019) 10 SCC 449, Union of India & ors. Vs. Lieutenant Colonel,
Kuldeep Yadav contending that the respondents cannot be permitted to
both approbate and reprobate. There can be no any dispute as regards the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said cases but the fact
remains that the petitioner is unable to substantiate and prove prima facie
his case, in the sense that he is unable to demonstrate that his land had
been acquired by the State Government, for which he would be entitled to
any compensation. Therefore, the said decisions will have no application to
the facts and circumstances of the present case. The land that had been
acquired by the State Government, is allegedly the land of his father. No
material has been placed on record by the petitioner to show that the
WP(C) No. 250 of 2019 Contd.../-
[13]
transfer of the land allegedly gifted to him by his father, was registered
prior to the acquisition of his father's land. In other words, the copy of the
gift deed produced by him does not show clearly that it was registered
before the acquisition of his father's land. This is what has been submitted
by the counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 which appears to be
prima facie correct on perusal of the gift deed. Since the petitioner has no
good case, his writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, it is open to
the petitioner to approach any appropriate forum for redressal of his
grievance.
[11] In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the
instant writ petition is devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed
with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
FR / NFR
Devananda
WP(C) No. 250 of 2019 Contd.../-
