Manipur High Court
Kom +05'30' Wangkhei Dolaithaba ... vs Ahanthem Sunita Devi on 17 August, 2022
JOHN Date:
Page |1
TELE 2022.08. IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
18 AT IMPHAL
N 13:27:07 MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2022
Ref:- WP(C) No. 730 of 2021
KOM +05'30' Wangkhei Dolaithaba Chingu Khubam Thougal Lup,
a registered society being Regd. No. 167/SR (I/E) 19
represented by its Vice-President, Sarangthem Raju
Meitei, having its office at Wangkhei Keithel
Ashangbi, P.O. and P.S. Porompat, Imphal East
District, Manipur, PIN-795005.
... Applicant
-Versus-
Ahanthem Sunita Devi, aged about 45 years,
daughter of late Ahanthem Mukta Singh, permanent
resident of Yonlan Leirak Machin, Imphal East
District, Manipur at present Singjamei Wangma
Pabya Pandit Leikai, Imphal East District, Manipur-
795008.
.... Writ petitioner/Respondent
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Applicant :: Mr. P. Tomcha, Advocate
For the Respondents :: Mr. H. Suraj, Advocate,
Mr. A. Golly, Advocate
Date of Hearing and
Reserving Judgment & Order :: 21.07.2022
Date of Judgment & Order :: 17.08.2022
MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2022
Ref:- WP(C) No. 730 of 2021
Page |2
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
Heard Mr. P. Tomcha, learned counsel for the
applicant and Mr. A. Golly, learned counsel for the respondent/writ
petitioner.
2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant
society to implead them as party respondent in the writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant society
submitted that the applicant is a society registered under the
Manipur Societies Registration Act, 1989 and that the Government
of Manipur declared the site of Wangkhei Dolai Thaba Chingu
Khubam measuring an extent of 1031 square meter as protected
historical monument in public interest under Section 4(3) of the
Manipur Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological
Sites and Remains Act, 1976. While so, the writ petitioner is trying
to usurp the land of Wangkhei Dolai Thaba Chingu Khubam.
4. The learned counsel further submitted that the
applicant society has also approached the Director of Arts and
Culture, Government of Manipur to take necessary action to issue
Jamabandi of the protected site in the name of Wangkhei Dolai
MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2022
Ref:- WP(C) No. 730 of 2021
Page |3
Thaba Chingu Khubam and the same was forwarded by the
Director to the third respondent to initiate necessary process.
5. The learned counsel urged that the writ petitioner filed
the writ petition for quashing of the notification of eviction
proceeding initiated by the second respondent and the applicant
society has also submitted their statement in Eviction Case No.2 of
2020 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Porompat. He also
urged that the members of the applicant society are all devotees of
Wangkhei Dolai Thaba Chingu Khubam and are all followers of the
indigenous religion of Sanamahi.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant society next
submitted that the applicant society is necessary party to the writ
petition and in their absence, any order passed in the writ petition,
will not only cause great prejudice, but also their sacred place will
be lost forever. Thus, a prayer is made to implead the applicant
society as party respondent in the writ petition.
7. Per contra, Mr. A. Golly, the learned counsel for the
respondent/writ petitioner submitted that the applicant society was
recently created one, whereas Wangkhei Dolai Thaba Chingu
Khubam was declared as protected historical monument way back
one and half decades ago. Thus, the applicant society is no way
MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2022
Ref:- WP(C) No. 730 of 2021
Page |4
connected with the historical monument. In fact, the third
respondent in the writ petition alone is the competent authority to
represent the protected historical monument. In view of the above,
the applicant society is neither a necessary party nor a proper party.
Accordingly, a prayer is made to dismiss the application.
8. We have considered the rival submissions and also
perused the materials available on record.
9. The grievance of the applicant society is that by the
order of declaration dated 5.9.2005, the Government of Manipur
declared the site of Wangkhei Dolai Thaba Chingu Khubam as
protected historical monument and by another order for
demarcation dated 18.4.2006, site measuring 1031 square meter
was demarcated. Further grievance of the applicant is that since
the writ petitioner is trying to usurp the land of Wangkhei Dolai
Thaba Chingu Khubam and filed the writ petition, the applicant
society is necessary party to be impleaded to contest the writ
petition.
10. On the other hand, it is the say of the writ petitioner
that before passing the order for declaration dated 5.9.2005 and the
order for demarcation dated 18.4.2006, no notice was issued by the
State Authority as mandated under the Act of 1976 and the Rules
MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2022
Ref:- WP(C) No. 730 of 2021
Page |5
framed thereunder. Accordingly, both the orders are not tenable
and sustainable in the eye of law.
11. As far as the question for declaration of the site
Wangkhei Dolai Thaba Chingu Khubam and demarcation of 1031
square meter are concerned, the same cannot be decided in this
application and that too in the writ petition. Therefore, the legality
of the issuance of the orders dated 5.9.2005 and 18.4.2006 cannot
be gone into. However, in the counter filed to the instant application,
the writ petitioner stated that he is going to file an appropriate case
for quashing and setting aside those two orders in due course, as
the passing of both orders came to his knowledge only through the
instant application. In view of the above, this Court has not delved
into the merits of the passing of the orders dated 5.9.2005 and
18.4.2006 respectively in this order.
12. Coming to the application for impleadment, it is stated
by the applicant society that since the applicant society filed an
application for issuance of Jamabandi patta and trace map of the
area 1031 square meter in the name of Wangkhei Dolai Thaba
Chingu Khubam and in view of the resolution passed by the
Managing Committee dated 4.12.2021 resolving to file necessary
application to implead Wangkhei Dolai Thaba Chingu Khubam,
MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2022
Ref:- WP(C) No. 730 of 2021
Page |6
through its Vice President, it is necessary to implead the applicant
society as party respondent in the writ petition.
13. The writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned
eviction order dated 11.10.2021 passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Imphal East and to direct the respondents therein
to consider and dispose of the representation dated 14.1.2019 of
the petitioner considering that the writ petitioner or her family is
indubitably landless.
14. According to the writ petitioner, she is one of the
daughters and legal heir of the her father Ahanthem Mukta Singh
and during his life time, her father was in possession and enjoyment
of Government land measuring an area of 20 x 40 feet in northern
portion from the Government lands in C.S. Dag No.1277 measuring
11 acre and Dag No.1278 measuring 0.12 acre at 27-Wangkhei
East, Imphal East. The revenue records in respect of 0.12 acre in
C.S. Dag No.1278 stood in the name of the petitioner's father.
However, on the basis of the letter dated 26.6.2012 of the third
respondent to the second respondent requesting to initiate eviction
proceeding against the petitioner for encroaching upon the
historical site of Wangkhei Dolai Theban Chingu Khubam and
constructing one shed, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Porompat issued
MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2022
Ref:- WP(C) No. 730 of 2021
Page |7
notice dated 15.12.2012 to the petitioner calling to show cause why
eviction proceedings should not be initiated against the petitioner
for the unauthorized occupancy of the Government Khas Land of
20 x 40 square feet or encroaching historical site under the Manipur
Public premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1978.
Considering the explanation given by the petitioner, the eviction
proceedings was closed by the concerned authority.
15. According to the petitioner on 14.1.2019, the petitioner
has submitted a representation to the second respondent under
Section 14 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act,
1960 read with the Allotment Rules, 1962 to allot the aforesaid land
under C.S. Dag No.1277 and C.S. Dag No.1278 for residential
purpose. Though the said representation was received by the
second respondent, no order has yet been passed. While so, the
respondent authorities again initiated another Eviction Case No.2
of 2020 against the petitioner and her two tenants and the petitioner
has also submitted explanation on 11.6.2020 and, accordingly, the
third respondent stopped further proceeding of the eviction case.
According to the petitioner, after the expiry of about 3 years from
the date of making representation, on 15.10.2021 an eviction order
dated 11.10.2021 was passed by the second respondent behind the
MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2022
Ref:- WP(C) No. 730 of 2021
Page |8
back and without notice to the petitioner thereby directing the
petitioner and others to remove the structure and construction made
and deliver vacant possession within 7 days from the date of receipt
of a copy of the order, failing which the fourth respondent will take
necessary steps for eviction.
16. The genuineness and the correctness of the impugned
eviction order dated 11.10.2021 and the representation of the
petitioner dated 14.1.2019 cannot be gone into in this application.
That apart, the petitioner is claiming right over the property stating
that the revenue records pertaining to the area of 0.12 acre in C.S.
Dag No.1278 stood in her name and, therefore, the third respondent
has no authority to request the second respondent to issue an
eviction order. The aforesaid cannot also be decided in the instant
application.
17. The point that arises for consideration is whether the
applicant society is required to be impleaded in the writ petition, as
party respondent.
18. The applicant society states that they are necessary
parties in the writ petition, as they applied Jamabandi patta to an
extent of 1031 square meter in C.S. Dag Nos.1277, 1278, 1282 and
1283 in the name of Wangkhei Dolai Theban Chingu Khubam.
MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2022
Ref:- WP(C) No. 730 of 2021
Page |9
19. "A necessary party" is a person who ought to have
been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective order
could be passed at all by the Court. A "proper party" is a party who,
though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would
enable the Court to completely, effectively and adequately
adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit, though he need
not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be
made. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party,
the Court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of
the plaintiff.
20. It is settled that the scope and ambit of Order 1, Rule
10(2) CPC regarding adding or striking out of parties. The said sub-
rule is not about the right of a non-party to be impleaded as a party,
but about the judicial discretion of the Court to strike out or add
parties at any stage of a proceeding. In the case on hand, looking
to the averments set out and the issue involved in the writ petition,
the impleading of the applicant society is not required.
21. According to the writ petitioner, she is in possession of
the Government land measuring an area of 20 x 40 feet in northern
portion from Government Khas lands under C.S. Dag No.1277 -
0.11 acre and Dag C.S.No.1278 - 0.12 acre. In the form of
MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2022
Ref:- WP(C) No. 730 of 2021
P a g e | 10
application for allotment dated 14.1.2019, the petitioner has stated
the aforesaid extent and C.S. Dag Nos. and requested the second
respondent to allot the said land for residential purpose. It is stated
that even after expiry of three years from the date of making such
application, the concerned authority has not considered the
application of the petitioner. However, an eviction order dated
11.10.2021 was issued by the second respondent to deliver vacant
possession. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the writ
petition. As stated supra, for the relief claimed in the writ petition,
the applicant society is no way related and therefore, the applicant
society is not a necessary party to the relief claimed in the writ
petition.
22. In Kasturi v. Uyyamperumal and others, (2005) 6
SCC 733, the Hon'ble Supreme Court provided two tests that are to
be satisfied for determining the question that who amounts to a
necessary party:
(i) there must be a right to some relief
against such party in respect of the
controversies involved in the
proceedings.
MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2022
Ref:- WP(C) No. 730 of 2021
P a g e | 11
(ii) no effective decree can be passed in the
absence of such a party.
23. In view of the above, the applicant society is not a
necessary party to the challenge made in the writ petition.
Therefore, there is no necessity to implead the applicant society as
party respondent in the writ petition and the application is liable to
be dismissed.
24. Accordingly, M.C.(WP) No.19 of 2022 is dismissed.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Sushil
MC(WP(C)) No. 19 of 2022
Ref:- WP(C) No. 730 of 2021
