Manipur High Court
Nameirakpam Inaotombi Singh vs Lourembam Basanta Singh & Anr on 19 April, 2022
Item No. 19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
CRP(CRP.Art.227) No. 29 of 2020
Nameirakpam Inaotombi Singh
....Petitioner
- Versus -
Lourembam Basanta Singh & anr.
...Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR
19.04.2022
Challenge in this revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is
to the judgment and order dated 03.03.2020 passed by the Revenue Tribunal,
Manipur, in Revenue Revision Case No. 50 of 2019.
By order dated 25.06.2020, this Court suspended the operation of
the impugned judgment and order dated 03.03.2020.
Heard Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel, appearing for the
petitioner; and Mr. Romendro Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.
The case of the petitioner is that his father purchased a piece of land
in Patta No. 130 (old), 110(new) of Heirangoithong Maibam Leikai in Village
No. 62 - Maibam Leikai, Imphal West under registered sale deed dated
29.07.1970 from one Laishram Malika. At the behest of the petitioner,
Demarcation Case No. 2/SDC/IW(C)2012 was taken up by the revenue
authorities. The spot verification/demarcation of the land was conducted by the
field staff of the Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal West (Central), on 03.01.2016
and objections were called for in that regard under Memorandum dated
10.02.2016. After considering the objections received from the respondents
herein, the Sub-Deputy Collector decided to ascertain the total area in the
original old record under Patta No. 110(old), 145(new) covered by C.S. Dag No.
6 of Revenue Village No. 62 - Maibam Leikai.
Ultimately, the Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal West (Central),
disposed of Dem.Case No. 2/SDC/IW(C)2012 by order dated 21.03.2016. By the
said order, he noted that the spot verification/demarcation of the land was
conducted by the field staff on 03.01.2016 and, thereafter, objections were
received from the respondents in that regard. He then referred to his earlier
order requiring the total area to be determined and stated that one Jiten
Sharma, C/Mandol of his office, had carried out the said order on 17.03.2016
and final/necessary pegs were given to all the concerned parties after
demarcating the land. Stating so, he disposed of the case.
It appears that the respondents herein filed Revenue Appeal
Demarcation Case No. 1 of 2016 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Lamphel,
Imphal West, against this order. However, in their wisdom, they chose to
withdraw it. Order dated 16.07.2016 was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Lamphel, Imphal West, disposing of the said appeal as withdrawn without liberty
to file another fresh appeal before him. The respondents then filed Revenue
Revision Case No. 48 of 2016 before the Revenue Tribunal, Manipur.
This case was disposed of by the Tribunal by way of the impugned
order dated 03.03.2020. Therein, the Tribunal merely recorded that the counsel
for the petitioners in the Revenue Revision Case, viz., the respondents herein,
submitted that the order dated 21.03.2016 was passed based on the sale deed
without following the technical procedure of demarcation and that the counsel
prayed for demarcation according to law. The Tribunal thereupon set aside the
order dated 21.03.2016 (wrongly shown as 12.03.2016 in the order) passed in
Dem.Case No. 2/SDC/IW(C)2012 and directed the Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal
West (C), to proceed with fresh demarcation according to law.
No reasons were furnished by the Tribunal as to why it found the
demarcation referred to in the order dated 21.03.2016 to be defective or
inadequate. Needless to state, an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority
necessarily has to reflect the reasons therefor. As pointed out by the Supreme
Court in State of Orissa vs. Dhaniram Luhar [(2004) 5 SCC 568], reason
is the heartbeat of every conclusion and without the same it becomes lifeless.
As the Tribunal failed to disclose the reasons for its conclusion as to
why the earlier demarcation was not sufficient and a fresh demarcation was
required, the order dated 03.03.2020 passed by the Revenue Tribunal, Manipur,
in Revenue Revision Case No. 50 of 2019 is set aside and the matter is remitted
to the file of the Tribunal for consideration afresh on merits and in accordance
with law and for passing a reasoned order. This exercise shall be completed
expeditiously and preferably within 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
The Civil Revision Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
Indrajeet
FR
