Manipur High Court
Shri Bhagwati Prashad vs The State Of Manipur Represented ... on 18 January, 2022
Page |1
JOHN Digitally signed
by JOHN TELEN IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
TELEN KOM
Date:
AT IMPHAL
2022.01.20
KOM 15:00:23 +05'30'
WP (C) No. 151 of 2008
1. Shri Bhagwati Prashad, aged about 71 years, S/o. Late
Ram Tapeshwar Sahu, President, Shree Mahavir
Mandir Telipati Sebait, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Porompat,
Imphal East District, Manipur.
2. The Vaishya Youth Club, having Regd. No. 1126 of
1972, represented by it's Shri Sitaram Shahu, aged
about 50years, S/o. Late Baliram Sahu of Telipati, P.O.
Imphal, P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur.
..... PETITIONERS
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner
/ Secretary (Arts & Culture), Government of Manipur,
Imphal.
2. The Commissioner (Revenue), Government of
Manipur.
3. The Superintendent of Archaeology, Government of
Manipur.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East District,
Manipur.
5. The Director of Arts & Culture, Government of Manipur.
6. Ahanthem Irabot Meetei, aged about 57 years, S/o late
A. Brajamohon Meetei, Secretary, Maichou Ningshing
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
Page |2
Meetei, Ukhrul Road, Lamlong Bazar, Imphal East,
Lamlong, PS Porompat.
... RESPONDENTS
WP (C) No. 857 of 2014
1. Shri Bhagwati Prashad, aged about 77 years, S/o.
(Late) Tapeshwar Sahu, President, Shree Mahavir
Mandir Telipati Sebait, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Porompat,
Imphal East District, Manipur.
2. The Vaishya Youth Club Having Regd. No. 1126 of
1972, represented by its Secretary Shri Sitaram Shahu,
aged about 56 years, S/o. (Late) Baliram Sahu of
Telipati, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Porompat, Imphal East
District, Manipur.
..... PETITIONERS
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner
/ Secretary (Arts & Culture), Government of Manipur,
Imphal.
2. The Commissioner (Revenue), Government of
Manipur.
3. The Superintendent of Archaeology, Government of
Manipur.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East District,
Manipur.
5. The Director of Arts & Culture, Government of Manipur.
... RESPONDENTS
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
Page |3
WP (C) No. 124 of 2015
1. Shri Bhagwati Prashad, aged about 77 years, S/o.
(Late) Tapeshwar Sahu, President Shree Mahavir
Mandir Telipati Sebait, P.O. Imphal & P.S. Porompat,
Imphal East District, Manipur.
2. The Vaishya Youth Club Having Regd. No. 1126 of
1972, represented by its Secretary Shri Sitaram Sahu,
aged about 56 years, S/o. (Late) Baliram Sahu of
Telipati, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Porompat, Imphal East
District, Manipur.
..... PETITIONERS
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner
/ Secretary (Arts & Culture), Government of Manipur.
2. The Commissioner/ Secretary (Revenue), Government
of Manipur.
3. The Superintendent of Archaeology, Government of
Manipur.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East District,
Manipur.
5. The Director of Arts & Culture, Government of Manipur.
... RESPONDENTS
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioners :: Mr. M. Hemchandra, Sr. Advocate
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
Page |4
Mr. Juno Rahman S., Advocate
For the Respondents :: Mr. M. Rarry, Addl. AG
Mr. M. Rakesh, Advocate
for the respondent No. 6 in
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008.
Date of Hearing and
reserving Judgment & Order :: 24.11.2021
Date of Judgment & Order :: 18.01.2022
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
W.P. (C) No.151 of 2008 has been filed by the
petitioners to quash the order dated 14.11.2007 and to direct the
respondents to refrain from taking any action in connection with the
setting up of a historical monument site at Telipati area of Khurai,
Imphal East District.
2. W.P.(C) No.857 of 2014 has been filed by the
petitioners to quash the notification bearing No.5/24/99-S(AC) of the
Commissioner (Arts and Culture), dated 7.9.2000 published in the
Manipur Gazette on 11.2.2013 corresponding to the notification
dated 15.1.2000 published on 28.1.2000 as arbitrary and to direct the
respondents to refrain from taking any action, in connection with the
setting up of a historical monument site at Telipatti area of Khurai,
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
Page |5
Imphal East District in view of the notification dated 7.9.2000 to
protect the principle of rule of law.
3. W.P.(C) No.124 of 2015 has been filed by petitioners
seeking to quash the impugned order dated 24.1.2015 as the same
was issued with material irregularities, arbitrary and non-application
of mind and to direct the respondents to refrain from taking any
action/arrangement/process in pursuance of the said order.
4. Since the issue involved is one and the same, all three
writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common
order.
5. The case of the petitioners is that Teli community are
inhabitants of Telipati area, Khurai, Imphal East District, Manipur
since time immemorial and most probably around 1872, the
Maharaja of Manipur donated the Mahavir Mandir Complex located
at Telipatti for construction of Mahavir Mandir. In the trace map
No.102, the actual size where the Mahavir Mandir is located is shown
in Dag No.33. Since 1872, the Mahavir Mandir Complex is
maintained and looking after by the villagers of Telipatti and using as
a place of worship and as such the plot of land measuring about 19
acres under Dag No.33 was registered in the name of the President
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
Page |6
of Mahavir Mandir Telipatti Shebait Bhagwati Prasad.
Jamabandi/Patta was also issued in the name of Mahavir Mandir
Telipatti Shebait Bhagwati Prasad.
6. Mahavir Mandir complex is used by the Shebaits and
the villagers of Telipatti as a place of worship and for the purpose
connected without any disturbance/interference from any quarter.
While so, the respondents, on the pressure of some vested groups
of people, declared the Telipati area as protected historical site of
Khurai Ahongpung. Further, the respondents without following the
procedures laid down in Sections 2(b)(v), 4(1) to (3), Section 13 and
20 of the Manipur Ancient and Historical Monuments and
Archaeological sites and Remains Act, 1976 and Rules 3(1), (2), (3),
(4) and (5) of the Manipur Ancient and Historical Monuments and
Archaeological sites and Remains Rules, 1979 declared the Telipati
area as the protected historical monument site of Khurai Ahongpung.
According to the petitioners, the respondents without complying with
the procedures laid down in Sections 4(1), 5(1), 6(1), 7, 8 and 9 of
the Land Acquisition Act issued the impugned order dated
14.11.2007. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed W.P.(C)
No.151 of 2008 before the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench and
the Gauhati High Court passed status quo order regarding the nature
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
Page |7
and possession of the land described i.e. the alleged Khurai
Ahongpung Telipatti site.
7. The respondent State while filing counter-affidavit in
W.P.(C) No.151 of 2008, enclosed the notification dated 7.9.2000
and the corresponding notification dated 15.1.2000 which are in
gross violation of natural justice and therefore, the same are
challenged in W.P.(C) No.857 of 2014. On 5.11.2014, this Court
passed an interim order to maintain status quo as regards petitioners'
possession. According to the petitioners, O.S.No.37 of 2014 has
been filed before the Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.II, Imphal
East and in Judicial Misc. Case No.333 of 2014, the Learned Civil
Judge has passed an order to keep status quo of the suit lands i.e.
Khurai Ahongpung Telipati in respect of the possession of the
petitioners. While things stood thus, pending the aforesaid two writ
petitions, the Superintendent of State Archaeology issued the
impugned order dated 24.1.2015, thereby notifying further the Khurai
Ahongpung, a State protected historical site and is open to all the
devotees and may be used for normal prayer from 6 am to 5 pm daily.
Challenging the same, W.P.(C) No.124 of 2015 has been filed by the
petitioners.
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
Page |8
8. The respondents in W.P.(C) No.151 of 2008 filed
counter stating that the land under Dag No.33 of village No.100 of
Telipatti is recorded as State Khas land as per records maintained
by the Revenue Department and therefore, the petitioners are not
entitled to file the writ petition against the respondents. It is stated
that in case of dispute about said land between the petitioners and
the respondents, the matter is to be decided by the Deputy
Commissioner under MLR and LR Act, 1960 and not by the High
Court and the decision made by the Deputy Commissioner is final.
As per report of the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East dated
21.8.1999, the name of pattadar of Khurai Ahongpung has been
made for protection of historical monument and sites. Since various
disputed facts are involved, the same are to be resorted only through
civil suits and the High Court cannot entertain it in the present form.
9. It is stated in the counter that Khurai Ahongpung is an
important historical site and it is regarded as sacred and holy by the
Manipuris and since the time immemorial, the Maharajas of Manipur
performed pooja every year by deputing Pandits and the same
practice is still continuing. The ritual is performed on every 1st
Saturday of Meitei month Lamda for every year. According to the
respondents, the State Government has enough jurisdiction under
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
Page |9
the Manipur Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological
Sites and Remains Act, 1976 (for short, "Act of 1976") to acquire the
historical site if any in order to protect and preserve the same in the
interest of general public. The said Khurai Ahongpung is an important
historical site and therefore, it has been rightly and lawfully preserved
by the State Government.
10. It is stated that the respondents issued notice dated
15.1.2000 as per the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act of 1976
calling objections from the interested persons if any within two
months from the date of issue of notification for protecting the area
of Khurai Ahongpung and there is no illegality in protecting the said
area under the said Act. The said area is to be expanded within the
Sarkari Khas land as per the Government revenue records and
accordingly, the Revenue Department has also clarified the said land
as Government Khas land under C.S.Dag No.17 and 19. Vide
notification dated 7.9.2000, the said site itself declared as protected
area. Since the expansion of Khurai Ahongpung is within the Sarkari
Khas land, it does not affect any of the surrounding pattadars. The
demarcation order was in continuation of previous protection order
of the said Khurai Ahongpung and it does not violate the provisions
of the Act of 1976.
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 10
11. It is stated in the counter that Khurai Ahongpung is
located since the time immemorial and every year Pandit Loisang is
performing ritual ceremonies there. There are four pungs (mounds)
located at four directions of Imphal valley during ancient time and
Khurai Ahongpung signified northern boundary and such historical
important place needed for protection. The Government has no
intention of renaming of Mahavir temple complex into Ahongpung.
The notification dated 14.11.2007 was in continuation of the order
dated 7.9.2000 in connection with the protection of Khurai
Ahongpung and therefore, there is no illegality in issuing the said
order and it is quite lawful and binding to the petitioners.
12. The private respondent No.6 in W.P.(C) No.151 of 2008
filed counter stating that in the year 2000, recognizing the historical
and archaeological important of Khurai Ahongpung, the respondent
State, after following due process of law declared the area measuring
.10 acre in all under Dag No.33 and 34 of Revenue Village No.100,
Telipati as historical monuments/sites of the said Khurai Ahongpung
under Section 4(3) of the Act of 1976. As per Rule 5 of the Manipur
Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and
Remains Rules, 1979 (for short, "Rules of 1979"), the Superintendent
of Archaeology is duty bound to demarcate the area appearing in the
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 11
notification and to cause necessary pillars and fencings to be fixed
for preservation of the protected monument. The Superintendent of
Archaeology instead of exercising his power and duty under Rule 5,
approached the Secretary of Seva Samiti, Telipati with the letter
imploring for comment and objection stating that his office is planning
to expand the area of Khurai Ahongpung to the northern site from the
existing area without mentioning anything about demarcation of the
existing area declared by the order dated 7.9.2000. The site plan
clearly shows that many new complexes namely Santoshi, Hanuman
Mandir, Shiva Mandir, Pooja Hall and Club have been shown inside
the said protection site of Khurai Ahongpung.
13. According to the sixth respondent, the then
Superintendent of Archaeology namely Bheigya Singh in cahoots
with the petitioners have allowed the sanctity and identity of protected
site to be encroached and destroyed, without any left and hindrance,
even though the site covering .10 acre had been declared as
protected monument and site. Though the declaration was made as
early as in the year 2000, the Superintendent of Archaeology instead
of having the site properly demarcated and have it properly fenced
for its preservation under Rule 5, sought to shift the protection site
on the northern side by using the impugned order dated 14.11.2007.
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 12
According to the sixth respondent, the impugned order dated
14.11.2007 has been issued to facilitate the setting up of illegal
structures, namely Santoshi, Hanuman Mandir, Shiva Mandir, Pooja
Hall and Club inside the protected area. The impugned order dated
14.11.2007, which was issued in continuation of the declaration order
dated 7.9.2000, is illegal and improper. The protected area of 0.10
acre should be immediately demarcated and properly fenced.
14. It is stated in the counter by the sixth respondent that
the impugned order dated 14.11.2007 was issued in violation of the
Act of 1976 and Rules of 1979, inasmuch as, the area to be
demarcated is not 90 Sq. m. as stated in the impugned order dated
14.11.2007, but the area to be demarcated under Rule 5 is the area
measuring 0.10 acre in total as stated in the impugned order dated
7.9.2000.
15. In the counter, the sixth respondent denied that Teli
communities are settled at the present site of Telipati, Khurai since
time immemorial or around 1872, Maharaja of Manipur gifted the
Mahavir Mandir Complex located at Telipati for construction of
Mahavir Mandir. In fact, no Mahavir Mandir in the existence inside
Dag No.33 at present even though the said Mandir is shown in the
remark column of Dag No.33. The Jamabandi and the revenue
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 13
receipt filed by the petitioners are after the issuance of the impugned
order dated 7.9.2000. At present, there is no Mahavir Mandir
Complex as alleged, however, a new Complex, namely Shri
Hanuman Mandir Complex was constructed inside the protected site
in violation of Act of 1976. To preserve the protected site, the sixth
respondent also submitted a representation. In fact, the letter dated
14.9.2006 was issued on the undue pressure on the behest of the
petitioners and also to accommodate and facilitate their illegal
encroachment of the protected site. The petitioners cannot equate
Khurai Ahongpung with Mahavir Mandir Complex. Hence, the sixth
respondent prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated
14.11.2007 with a direction to the Superintendent of Archaeology to
proceed under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1979 and have the area
appearing in the notification dated 7.9.2000 properly demarcated and
preserved.
16. In W.P.(C) No.857 of 2014, the respondents 1 to 4
therein filed counter stating that State Government having felt the
importance of Khurai Ahongpung started process for declaration of
the same as one of the protected area amongst the other. On such
process, the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East, after examining the
said place where Khurai Ahongpung is lying, had wrote a letter to the
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 14
Superintendent of State Archaeology on 21.8.1999, thereby
proposing the said Khurai Ahongpung for protection as an ancient
historical monument under the Act of 1976. The Government had
also issued notification dated 15.1.2000 showing the intention of the
Government to declare the said Khurai Ahongpung as protected
historical monument, thereby inviting objections from any interested
person within two months. As no objection was raised even after a
lapse of 7 months, the Government had issued the impugned order
dated 7.9.2000 declaring the said ancient historical monument called
Khurai Ahongpung as protected historical monument and sites.
17. It is stated that the land covered by C.S.Dag No.33 is a
State Khas land and it is highly questionable under what source of
legal right, the name of the first petitioner as President of Mahavir
Mandur has been recorded in the Jamabandi and there was no
record to show that the said Dag No.33 was allotted to the petitioners
by the Government nor has any title deed so that the name of the
Mahavir Mandir recorded as owner in the said record of right.
Trespassing/encroaching over the said protected area of Khurai
Ahongpung in the names of God, Goddess and Deities as now doing
by the petitioners and their men and followers, should not be
encouraged as it being an illegal act tainted with ill-motive for graving
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 15
the State Khas land, wherein Kuhurai Ahongpung is lying from the
time immemorial 33 AD and which has also been protected as
historical monument and sites by the Government of Manipur.
18. It is stated that the members of Maichou Ningshing Lup
are the worshipers of the said Khurai Ahongpung which is an ancient
historical monument and also joined in the prayer ceremony held by
Maibas of Pandit Loishang with the present King of Manipur by
offering rice, fruits and vegetables every year in the Lamda Thangja
for driving out the evil spirits and also for getting boon for prosperity
of the people of Manipur etc. There is nothing wrong while initiating
some steps for development of the said Khurai Ahongpung in a lawful
manner. Since the petitioners and their followers have no right and
title over the said land in question, the official respondents 1 to 4
prayed for dismissal of the W.P.(C) No.857 of 2014.
19. It appears that in W.P.(C) No.124 of 2015, the
respondents have not filed their counter.
20. Heard Mr.M.Hemchandra Singh, learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.Rarry Mangsatabam,
learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent
State. This Court also heard the submission of Mr. M. Rakesh,
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 16
learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent in W.P.(C)
No.151 of 2008.
21. The argument of Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned senior
counsel for the petitioners is summarized as under:
The petitioners belong to Shebait Teli communities, residing
at Telipatti, Khurai and are residing more than 145 years.
Around 1872, the then Maharaja of Manipur viz., Chandrakirti
Maharaja gifted the Mahavir Mandir Complex located at
Telipati for construction of Mahavir Mandir and other Gods and
Goddesses namely Kali Mandir, Hanuman Mandir, Durga
Mandir, Radha, Krishna Mandir etc. and the location of
Mahavir Mandir in the trace map of Hafiz Hatta bearing No.102
is marked as Dag No.33. Since then the Mahavir Mandir
Complex is looked after by the villagers of Telipati and has
been used as a place of worship.
The plot of land measuring 0.19 acres under Dag No.33
bearing Patta No.132 situated at 100-Telipati, Porompat Sub-
Division has been in the name of the President, Mahavir
Mandir Telipatti Shebait and the petitioners are in possession
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 17
of the land and having paying the land revenue regularly for
last considerable length of years.
The villagers of Telipatti and the Shebaits of the temples have
developed the temple ground by filling in each and has
elevated the ground level by about 1½ feet about 120 years
ago.
The Commissioner (Revenue) without complying the
mandatory requirement of law declared the Mahavir Mandir
Complex as the alleged historical site arbitrarily, illegally and
in contravention of law laid down under Rules 3(1),(2),(3),(4)
and (5) of the Manipur Ancient and Historical Monuments and
Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1979 and thus
issued the letter dated 14.9.2006 and the impugned order
dated 14.11.2007 and 7.9.2000 by invoking the provisions
under Section 4(3) of the Manipur Ancient and Historical
Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1976.
The Superintendent of Archaeology declared the Khurai
Ahongpung Telipatti, Imphal East to be historical monument
and Archaeological site/protected area under Section 4(3) of
the Act of 1976 without complying the precondition laid down
in the Rules of 1979. Therefore, any consequential order
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 18
dated 7.9.2000 notified on 11.2.2013 in the Manipur Gazette
and another conflicting order dated 7.9.2000 notified on
20.7.2002 in the Gazette are liable to be set aside.
Without considering the objections submitted by the petitioner,
the Under Secretary, Arts and Culture issued an order dated
14.11.2007 for demarcation of the protected historical
monument site measuring 90 sq. m of Khurai Ahongpung.
Impugned order dated 14.11.2007 was issued after a gap of
more than 7 years.
In fact, the respondents have not complied with the relevant
rules and more particularly, Rule 5
Regarding the land in question, the petitioners have filed
O.S.No.37 of 2014 before the Learned Civil Judge (Senior
Division) No.II, Manipur East. In the said suit, an interim order
of status quo order was granted on 5.9.2014 in respect of the
disputed land i.e. Khurai Ahongpung and possession of the
petitioners as on today and the same is waiting for final
adjudication.
During the pendency of W.P.(C) Nos.151 of 2008, 847 of 2014
and 124 of 2015, the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East
passed an order in Misc. Case No.2 of 2018 thereby declaring
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 19
the disputed land as State land has already been deferred by
the Revenue Tribunal by its order dated 18.10.2021 passed in
Revenue Revision Case No.42 of 2021 and the same is
pending for final adjudication.
The impugned notification dated 7.9.2000 is illegal and the
same cannot stand in the eye of law as the respondents have
failed to comply the Rules of 1979.
22. In support, learned senior counsel placed reliance upon
the following decisions:
(i) J&K Public Service Commission and others v.
Dr.Narinder Mohan and others, (1994) 2 SCC 630.
(ii) Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. Internatinal Airport
Authority of India and others, (1979) 3 SCC 489.
(iii) Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India
Limited and others v. Ananta Saha and others,
(2011) 5 SCC 142.
(iv) Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Suga Mill (P) Ltd.
and others, (2003) 2 SCC 111.
23. The argument of Mr. M. Rarry, learned Additional
Advocate General appearing for the respondent State is summarized
as under:
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 20
The non-filing of the order dated 7.9.2000 nor challenging the
said order at that point of time on 28.2.2008 was deliberately
intentional and malafide as a period of 8 years had already
lapsed since 7.9.2000.
The petitioners have approached this court with unclean
hands by suppressing the material facts and documents.
The writ petition is not a public interest litigation but seeks
remedy of infringement of private rights in respect of an order
passed by the State Government seeking to demarcate the
protected historic monument site measuring 90 sq. metre of
Khurai Ahongpung, Imphal East.
Rule 5 of the Rules of 1979 provides causing, demarcation of
the site by causing necessary pillars and fencing to be fixed
demarcating the area appearing in the notification and
requited for preservation of the protected monument.
The manner of inquiry provided under Chapter 2, Rules 3 and
4 of the Rules of 1979, before the Ancient Monument or
Archaeological site may be declared to be protected is to
cause enquiry to the antiquity of the monuments or
archaeological sites.
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 21
The age of the said Khurai Ahongpoung is said to be related
back to the year of 33 AD and the manner in which it is a
monuments or archaeological sites and remains has been
submitted in detail.
After the Superintendent of Archaeology considered it
sufficient for protection, a proposal was sent to the
Government on 6.4.1999 in terms of Rule 3(2) and (3) of Rules
of 1979.
The process and enquiry was not only related to Khurai
Ahongpung but also Angom Pokpa and Leithom Phatpa.
The petitioners have no case to prove that the respondent
State not complied with any provision of law in declaring
Khurai Ahongpung and two others in declaring as historical
sites in Manipur.
The impugned order dated 14.11.2007 clearly mentions the
boundary of north, south, east and west as per the schedule
in terms of the said site plan. However, the petitioners have
not whispered as to how the proposed site plant is going to
adversely affects their rights in regard to claim made in the writ
petition.
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 22
The main contention and cause of action allegedly set out to
file the writ petitions is based on the claim of ownership of the
disputed land in question whereby the petitioners claim to be
the owner of the land based upon a Jamabandi said to be
issued on 3.2.2004 by the Supervisor Kanango, SDC,
Porompat.
The petitioners are claiming to be aggrieved persons only
based upon their claim of ownership of the land in question in
respect of the land covered in C.S.Dag Nos.33 and 34 of
Village No.100 of Telepati.
In fact, C.S.Dag Nos.33 and 34 are the State Khas Land and
it is not owned by the petitioners in any lawful or legal manner
and that the petitioners can no longer to be said to be an
aggrieved persons in respect of the declaration or
demarcation of land where the historical site where Khurai
Ahongpung is situated.
Though the petitioners claim that around 1872, the then
Maharaja of Manipur gifted the Mahavir Mandir Complex at the
disputed site, the photographs annexed to the writ petitions
clearly show that Mahavir Mandir was established in 1960.
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 23
During 1960, the name of the petitioners would have been
recorded in Dag Chitha as well as Jamabadi book maintained
by the Revenue Department.
On the contrary, the earliest Jamabandi produced by the
petitioners is dated 3.2.2004 and the petitioners have not
record of any Jamabandi or Dag Chitha pre-dating from 1960,
General Survey in the State of Manipur.
The petitioners have failed to show how the mutation in the
record was carried out in terms of Section 46(2) of the MLR
and LR Act, 1960, which mandates that such mutation entry
has to be done on the basis of registered documents
transferring rights of immovable properties like sale deeds, gift
deeds, etc.
As there were no illegalities in issuing the impugned orders,
learned Additional Advocate General prays for dismissal of the
writ petitions.
24. This Court considered the submissions made by
learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the
materials available on record.
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 24
25. The grievance of the petitioners is that they belong to
Shebait Teli community and have settled in the site of Telipati,
Khurai, Imphal East District for the last 145 years and established
temples namely Mahavir Mandir and other Mandirs without any
disturbances from any quarters. However, the State Government,
vide notification dated 7.9.2000 published in the Manipur Gazette on
11.2.2003, declared that the Khurai Ahongpung Telipati site as
protected monuments and sites in total contravention of relevant
laws and rules. The further grievance of the petitioners is that without
considering the objections submitted by the petitioners, the Under
Secretary, Arts & Culture issued the impugned order dated
14.11.2007 for demarcation of the protected historical monuments
site measuring 90 Sq. m of Khurai Ahongpoung. According to the
petitioners, the impugned orders are in gross violation of natural
justice, relevant laws under Manipur Ancient and Historical
Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1976 and
the Rules, 1979, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and most importantly
to the total disregard of the legal rights of the petitioners or the Teli
communities.
26. It is also the case of the petitioners that around 1872,
the then Maharaja of Manipur donated the Mahavir Mandir Complex
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 25
located at Telipati for the construction of Mahavir Mandir and other
Gods and Goddesses namely Kali Mandi, Hanuman Mandir, Durga
Mandir, Radha, Krishna Mandir etc. and accordingly, the Shebait Teli
communities constructed the aforesaid Mandirs and since then the
Mahavir Mandir Complex is looked after by the villagers of Telipatti
and has been used as a place of worship.
27. According to the petitioners, the plot of land measuring
0.19 acres under Dag No.33 bearing Patta No.132 situated at 100-
Telipatti has been in the name of the President, Mahavir Mandir
Telipatti Shebait and the petitioners are in possession of the land and
have been paying the land revenue regularly and in fact, the villagers
of Telipati and the Shebaits of the temple has developed the temple
ground by filling in earth and has elevated the ground level by 1 ½
feet about 120 years ago.
28. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent State
that the land under Dag No.33 of Village No.100 of Telipati is
recorded as State Khas land as per the records maintained by the
Revenue Department. As per the report of the Deputy
Commissioner, Imphal East, dated 21.8.1999 that the name of
pattadar of Khurai Ahongpung has been made for protection of
historical monument and sites as Khurai Ahongpung is an important
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 26
historical site and it is regarded as sacred and holy by the Manipuris
and since the time immemorial, the Maharajas of Manipur performed
pooja every year by deputing Pandits and the same practice is still
continuing.
29. According to the respondent State, the State has
enough jurisdiction to acquire historical site, if any in order to protect
and preserve the same in the interest of general public. Since Khurai
Ahongpung is an important historical site and therefore, it has been
rightly and lawfully preserved by the State Government in the interest
of general public. In fact, the respondent authorities issued notice on
15.1.2000 as per the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act of 1976
calling objections from the interested persons if any within two
months from the date of issue of the said notice for protecting the
area of Khurai Ahongpung and before declaring Khurai Ahongpung
as historical monument, the respondent authorities have followed all
procedures in accordance with the relevant Rules and Act.
30. It is also the case of the respondent State that the area
in which Khurai Ahongpung located was to be expanded within the
Sarkari Khas land and accordingly, the Revenue Department has
clarified the said land as Government Khas land under C.S.Dag
Nos.17 and 19 and it does not affect any of the surrounding
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 27
pattadars. The demarcation order dated 14.11.2007 was in
continuation of the previous protection order dated 7.9.2000, which
was issued after due formalities as required under the Act of 1976.
Since the land is in Government Khas, the question of acquisition of
the land under the Land Acquisition Act does not arise. According to
respondent State, Khurai Ahongpung is located since the time
immemorial and every year Pandit is performing ritual ceremonies
and in fact there are four Pungs located at four directions of Imphal
valley during ancient time and Khurai Ahongpung signified northern
boundary and such historical important place needed for protection.
31. In W.P.(C) No.151 of 2008, the petitioners have
challenged the order dated 14.11.2007, whereby the Art and Culture
Department, directed to demarcate the protected historical
monument site measuring 90 Sq. m. of Khurai Ahongpung. In the
said order, it has been stated that the same has been issued in
continuation of the Government order dated 7.9.2000. Since, both
the orders are under challenge, for proper appreciation, the same are
extracted herein below:
32. The impugned order dated 14.11.2007 reads thus:
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 28
"ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR OF MANIPUR
Imphal, the 14th November, 2007.
No.5/24/99-S(AC): In continuation of this Government
order of even number dated 7.9.2000 (copy enclosed
for ready reference), the Governor of Manipur is
pleased to demarcate the Protected Historical
Monument Site measuring 90 Sq m. of Khurai Ahong
Pung, Imphal East as per schedule below:-
1.North:- Dag No.19 Khas Land.
2.South:- Hanuman Mandir
3.West:- Khurai Lamlong Bazar Road
4.East:- (i) Patta Land of Smt.Tampha Devi, Wife of
(Late) Manilal Teli of Telipati Dag No.17 & 18.
ii) Mani Prasad Teli S/o. (Late) Rashindra Teli
of Khurai Telipati Dag No.20."
33. The order dated 7.9.2000, reads thus:
"GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR
SECRETARIAT : ARTS & CULTURE DEPARTMENT
ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR : MANIPUR
Imphal, the 7th September, 2000
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 29
No.5/24/99-S (AC) : Under Sub-section (3) of Section 4
of the Manipur Ancient and Historical Monuments and
Archaeological sites and Remains Act, 1976, the
Governor of Manipur is pleased to declare the following
sites in the interest of the public as the historical
monuments and archaeological sites, the details of
which are given in the attached schedule, as protected
monuments and sites."
34. It appears that W.P.(C) No.151 of 2008 was originally
filed before Gauhati High Court by the petitioners and the Gauhati
High Court, by an order dated 7.3.2008, passed an interim order to
the effect that status quo regarding the nature and possession of the
land described i.e. Khurai Ahongpung Telipatti site. Similarly,
W.P.(C) No.857 of 2014 challenging the order dated 7.9.2000 was
filed and this Court by an order dated 5.9.2014 directed to maintain
status quo of the suit lands i.e. Khurai Ahongpung Telipati in respect
of the possession of the petitioners as on that date.
35. It also appears that in respect of the land measuring
0.19 acre covered by Dag No.33 of Jamabandi in the name of the
first petitioner and the land measuring 0.01 acre covered by Dag
No.34 standing in the name of the second petitioner, both the
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 30
petitioners have filed O.S.No.37 of 2014 before the Civil Judge
(Senior Division) No.II, Manipur East against Ahanthem Irabot Meitei,
who is stated to be the Secretary of Maichou Ningshing Lup, Khurai
and the President of Khurai Ahongpung Kanba Apunba, which are
stated to be unregistered. In the said suit, the petitioners took out an
application being Judl. Misc. Case No.333 of 2014 for interim
injunction. By the order dated 5.9.2014, the Learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division) No.II, Imphal East passed an status quo order. The
relevant portion of the order is quoted below:
"Hence, keeping of the status-quo of the suit lands in
respect of the possession of the plaintiffs/petitioners as on
today should be maintained by the both parties and their
men, agents and privies till further order."
36. Thus, from the above proceedings, it is clear that with
regard to C.S.Dag No.33 and 34, particularly the area where Mahavir
Mandir and other Mandirs on one hand and on the other Khurai
Ahongpung situate, there was land dispute between the petitioners
as one group and persons belonging to Maichou Ningshing Lup on
the other. The pendency of the civil suit filed by the petitioners has
not been disputed by the respondent State. In fact, in their counter
filed in W.P.(C) No.151 of 2008, the respondent State stated that the
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 31
dispute of the land is to be resorted only through civil suits or
appropriate proceedings before a competent Courts. For proper
appreciation, paragraph 6 of the counter filed in W.P.(C) No.151 of
2008 is extracted hereunder:
"6. .... it is submitted that the dispute of the said land is
to be resorted only through Civil Suits or appropriate
proceedings before a competent Courts because the
matter involves various disputed facts and thus taing of
evidence is necessary in order to proof the factum of
real ownership and therefore, the Hon'ble High Court
has not to entertain it in the present form. The said land
is purely recorded as State Khas land."
37. According to the petitioners, the land measuring 0.19
acres under Dag No.33 is registered in the name of the President of
Mahavir Mandir Telipati Shebait Shri Bhagwati Prasad and in fact,
the SDC, Porompat has issued Jamabandi patta in favour of the said
name. Since Shebaits of the Mahavir Mandir Telipati are in
possession of the laid in question for long time, it is clear that the said
disputed land/plot has been enjoying by the Shebaits of the Mahavir
Mandir Telipatti without any interference and conflict from any
quarters.
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 32
38. The aforesaid plea has been strongly objected by the
respondent State by contending that the petitioners are claiming right
over the disputed land in question based on Jamabandi and that too
without any supporting claim of having registered document of
transfer of the said land in their favour and therefore, in the absence
of any valid title deed, the petitioners cannot claim any right over the
disputed land. That apart, as per Section 17 of the Registration Act,
1908, any document or instrument which purports or intends to
create title should be registered and, in case, the same is not
registered, it would not affect any immovable property comprised
therein or moreover it could not be allowed as evidence of any
transaction affecting such property. In support, learned Additional
Advocate General relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited
though Director v. State of Haryana and another, (2009) 7 SCC 363.
39. It is also the submission of learned Additional Advocate
General that Section 49 of the Registration Act makes it clear that a
document which is to be compulsorily registered, if not registered,
will not affect the immovable property comprised therein in any
manner and it will also not be received as evidence of any transaction
affecting such property, except for certain limited purpose. In
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 33
support, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of SMS Tea Estates Private Limited v. Chandmari Tea
Company Private Limited, (2011) 14 SCC 66.
40. By relying upon the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, learned Additional Advocate General urged that no
immovable property could be relinquished without there being
registered document, mutation, if any, conducted on the basis of oral
relinquishment/Azadinama as claimed by the petitioners has no
bearing on the rights of the State Government being the absolute
owner of the land in question.
41. Also by relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Sankalchan Jaychandbhai Patel and
others v. Vithalbhai Jayachandbhai Patel and others, (1996) 6 SCC
433; Sawarni v. Inder Kaur and others, AIR 1996 SC 2823; Prem
Nath Khanna and othrs v. Narinder Nath Kapoor (dead) through legal
representatives and others, (2016) 12 SC 235 and Guru Amarji Singh
v. Rattan Chand, (1993) 4 SCC 349, learned Additional Advocate
General argued that mutation does not confer any title and that the
mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or
extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. Particularly,
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 34
learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the Jamabandi
referred to by the petitioners does not create title over the land in
question in favour of the petitioners.
42. It is also the submission of learned Additional Advocate
General that Ahanthem Irabot Meetei and Maichou Ningsing Lup, a
registered body have filed an application under Section 11(3) of MLR
&LR Act to declare the lands under Dag No.33 measuring an area of
0.19 acres and Dag No.34 measuring an area of 0.01 acre in Village
No.100-Telipatti as Government land. According to him, the said
lands are sacred place of Meitei/Meetei Deity from time immemorial
and related with the cultural heritage. In the said application, they
have claimed that some of the Sevaits of Shree Shree Mahaveer, a
Hindu God and Kalimai Devi, a Hindu Goddess and other individual
persons have wrongfully occupied the said lands thereby
constructing various semi-pucca structures. It is also the submission
of learned Additional Advocate General that the Deputy
Commissioner, by the order dated 16.8.2021, declared the land
under Dag No.33 and 34 to be Government land as the petitioners
herein could not produce any allotment order in their behalf in respect
of the said land. Since the said action of the Deputy Commissioner
is pending writ petitions that too when the status quo order is in
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 35
operation, the respondent State cannot rely on the order of the
Deputy Commissioner dated 16.8.2021.
43. It is trite law that mutation does not confer any title and
mutation entries are only to enable the State to collect revenues from
the persons in possession and enjoyment of the property and the
right, title and interest as to the property should be established
dehors the entries. In the instant case, though the State contended
that the disputed land is State Khas, prima facie, no record has been
produced to prove the same.
44. The respondent State contend that the petitioners
cannot claim ownership of the disputed land on the basis of the
Jamabandi which itself is a product of fraud and that the petitioners
are not legally aggrieved in respect of the steps initiated by the State
Government relating to the land in question. The respondent State
avers that when an issue to be decided in exercise of a writ
jurisdiction involves disputed question of facts requiring oral
evidence, cross-examination, the proper course would be to relegate
the parties to a civil proceedings and such matter are not
entertainable in writ jurisdiction.
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 36
45. Whether or not the disputed plot and/or land belongs to
the State Khas or it exclusively belongs to the Mahavir Mandir
Complex are to be decided by the civil court and in writ jurisdiction
the same cannot be decided as it would involve oral and
documentary evidence. Since the law is well settled, the proposition
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases have
not been quoted.
46. Admittedly, with regard to the disputed land and/or plot,
civil suit is pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.II,
Imphal East, wherein also the Court directed the parties to maintain
status quo of the suit lands in respect of the possession of the
petitioners herein as on 5.9.2014 by both parties and their men,
agents till further orders. There is no dispute between the parties that
the said interim order is in operation. When that being so, it would
not be appropriate for the writ court to pass any order on this issue
or comment upon the order dated 5.9.2014. It is the bounden duty of
the parties concerned to keep maintaining the aforesaid order dated
5.9.2014 till the disposal of the civil suit.
47. Coming to the challenge made to the impugned orders
dated 14.11.2007 and 7.9.2000, it is seen that the petitioners have
challenged the aforesaid two orders in reverse order. In fact, the
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 37
petitioners have first challenged the order dated 14.11.2007 and then
7.9.2000 contending that at the time of filing of the writ petition
challenging the order dated 14.11.2007, they had no knowledge
about the order dated 7.9.2000 and only when the respondent State
filed counter in W.P.(C) No.151 of 2008, they knew about the order
dated 7.9.2000 and immediately, they have filed W.P.(C) No.857 of
2014 challenging the order dated 7.9.2000.
48. The petitioners claim that around the year 1872, the
then Maharaja of Manipur viz., Chandrakirti Maharaja gifted the
Mahavir Mandir Complex located at Telipati for construction of
Mahavir Mandir and other Gods and Goddesses namely Kali Mandir,
Hanuman Mandir, Durga Mandir, Radha, Krishna Mandir etc. and the
same were located in Dag No.33. Since then the Mahavir Mandir
Complex is looked after by the villagers of Telipati and has been used
as a place of worship.
49. According to the petitioners, the Commissioner
(Revenue), without complying with the mandatory requirement of
law, declared the Mahavir Mandir Complex as historical site
arbitrarily, illegally and, in contravention of law laid down under Rules
3(1),(2),(3),(4) and (5) of the Rules of 1979 and Section 4(3) of the
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 38
Act of 1976 issued the impugned orders dated 14.11.2007 and
7.9.2000.
50. By the impugned order dated 14.11.2007, the
respondent State intend to demarcate the protected historical
monument site measuring 90 Sq m of Khurai Ahongpoung under
Rule 5 of the Rules of 1979. By the impugned order dated 7.9.2000,
the Commissioner declared Khurai Ahongpung as the historical
monument as per Section 4(3) of the Act of 1976.
51. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners argued that
soon after the issuance of the declaration on 7.9.2000, the
respondent State has not taken any steps for demarcation and only
after a gap of more than 7 years, the respondent State issued the
impugned order dated 14.11.2007 by ignoring the provisions of Rule
5 and Section 4(3) of the Act of 1976. Admittedly, there is a long gap
of passing orders between 7.9.2000 and 14.11.2007. As soon as a
declaration by notification has been confirmed under Section 4(3) of
the Act, the Superintendent of Archaeology shall cause necessary
pillars and fencings to be fixed demarcating the area appearing in the
notification and required for preservation of the protected monument.
Admittedly, in the case on hand, the respondents authorities have
failed to do so.
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 39
52. At this juncture, by relying upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, Coal India Limited (supra), learned senior counsel argued
that if initial action is not in consonance with law, subsequent
proceedings would not sanctify the same. This Court finds some
force in the submission made by learned senior counsel for the
petitioners.
53. By the impugned order dated 24.1.2015, the State
Archaeology issued notification to all the general public to the effect
that Khurai Ahongpoung, a State Protected Historical Site, is open to
all the devotees and it can be used for normal prayer from 6 am to 5
pm daily.
54. The specific case of the petitioners is that in the area of
Telipati, particularly, the site where the Mahavir temple is located,
there is no place such as Khurai Ahongpung nor is it connected with
any historical or cultural activities of Meiteis of any other community
for that matter. According to the petitioners, the Mahavir temple was
constructed by the Shebaits of the Mandir some time around 1872
with the permission of the then Maharaja of Manipur and it is not
related with any religious/historical activities of Meitei communities.
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 40
55. Per contra, the State states that Khurai Ahongpung is a
mound which has been lying since the time immemorial and during
the reign of King of Manipur namely Neidinga Nongda Lairen
Pakangaba (33 AD to 154 AD), the then Maichou along with people
of Manipur under the supervision of the King started worshiping the
said Khurai Ahongpung by offering rice, fruits, vegetables etc. every
year on the 1st Saturday of the Meitei month called Lamda which is
commonly known as Lamda Thangja.
56. It appears that there is dispute between the Teli
community and Meitei community in respect of the origin of Mahavir
Mandir and Khurai Ahongpung respectively in Mahavir Mandir
Complex, Telipati. The petitioners claim that the Mahavir Mandir
Complex has been using the temple complex and has been
managing the affairs of the Mahavir Mandir without any interference,
but suddenly one fine morning the respondent State without proper
application of mind and on the undue pressure and dictation of
persons with vested interest, arbitrarily declared the Mahavir Mandir
Complex as the protected historical site of Ahongpung.
57. The records reveal that prior to the letter dated
25.2.2006 addressed by the Secretary of Maichou Ningshing Lup
namely Irabot Mangang to the Hon'ble Minister (Arts and Culture)
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 41
requesting for development of Khurai Ahongpung site for the purpose
of socio-cultural use, there was no record to show that the place in
which the Mahavir Mandir Complex located was in peaceful
possession of the community of Meitei. In fact, in the said letter dated
25.2.2006 the Secretary stated that there is hardly any space/spot to
set afoot for the purpose of performing religious rites or for that matter
of annual celebration of Landa Thangja. In the said letter, a prayer
was also made for development of the Ahongpung space by the
Government to a beautiful historical site for the purpose of
celebrating Lamda Thangja every year since the present space is too
small for the function to accommodate a large gathering on the
occasion.
58. It also appears that on 14.9.2006, the Superintendent
of Archaeology informed the Seva Samiti, Telipati that they are
planning to expand the area of Khurai Ahongpoung to the northern
side from the existing area. The so- called Seva Samiti is concerned
with the petitioners. If the petitioners have no interest in the land in
question for expansion of Khurai Ahongpung, why the
Superintendent of Archaeology called objections from the Seva
Samiti. Thus, it is clear that the petitioners have some right in the
Mahavir Mandi temple complex, Telipati. It is also the case of the
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 42
respondent State that it has no intention of renaming the Mahavir
Mandir.
59. The petitioners contend that they are in physical
possession of the site/land in question since 1872 even prior to the
MLR & LR Act, 1960 came into force in the year 1960. As stated
supra, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioners and Teli community
with others have been possessed the site/land in question and
recognizing their possession Jamabandi patta was also issued in
favour of the petitioners.
60. On analysis of the records and the materials produced
by both parties, this Court finds that there is a dispute between the
petitioners and the State over a particular land/plot for expansion of
Khurai Ahongpung. As stated supra, such dispute cannot be
determined in writ jurisdiction on affidavit evidence. Since the
petitioners plead that they are in possession of the area/land in
question from 1872, on the strength of the impugned orders, they
cannot be dispossessed, as status quo order existing in favour of the
petitioners and the same has not been vacated till date by either of
the opposite parties, including the respondent State.
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 43
61. As stated supra, since there was long gap in issuing the
impugned orders, this Court is of the view that the impugned order
dated 7.9.2000 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. That apart, as
soon as the order dated 7.9.2000 passed, the Superintendent of
Archaeology failed to demarcate the area and put up necessary
pillars and fencing. However, the Under Secretary of Arts and Culture
intend to demarcate the land only on 14.11.2007. Such a long delay
has not been convincingly explained by the respondent authorities.
In view of the long delay having not been convincingly explained by
the respondent authorities, the same also cannot be sustained in the
eye of law. It appears that the respondent authorities failed to afford
sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and others before
issuing the impugned orders dated 7.9.2000 and 14.11.2007 and
there is violation of principles of natural justice. Since the impugned
orders dated 7.9.2000 and 14.11.2007 are not sustainable in law, the
next order dated 24.1.2015 passed pending writ petitions, which is a
consequential order, is also unsustainable in law.
62. At this juncture, placing reliance upon Section 2(a) of
the Act of 1976, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
ancient monuments means any structure, erection or monuments or
any tumulus or place of internment, or any cave, rock-sculpture,
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 44
inscription or monolith, which is of historical, archaeological or artistic
interest and which has been in existence for not less than one
hundred years. Thus, the description of Khurai Ahongpung cannot
be fitted to the definition as given in Section 2(a) of the Act of 1976.
The Indian Archaeological Society is engaged with various projects
in the field of conservation of monuments, preservation of museum
collections, study of various factors of decay, risk preparedness,
scientific approach to the conservation problem pertaining to
museum collection, archives, libraries and published various
journals. Since the Archaeology Department is an expert and after
conducting various level of surveys and enquiry, it has declared
Khurai Ahongpung as historical monument in the interest of public.
Though this Court found that all three orders impugned in these writ
petitions are unsustainable in law, since Khurai Ahongpung has been
declared as State Protected Historical Site by the State Government,
this Court does not wish to enter into the issue of declaration of
Khurai Ahongpung as State Protected Historical Monument by the
respondent State.
63. Since in reference to the area in which the Khurai
Ahongpung and Mahavir Mandir Temple and other temples are
situated, there was land dispute between the petitioners as one part
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 45
and the Meitei community on the other part, the rights with regard to
the land and/or the land for expansion on the northern side has to be
decided by a civil court, for which the parties are at liberty to
approach the civil court for redressal. Till such redressal of the rights
of the parties by a civil court, all parties concerned, including the two
communities as aforesaid are directed to maintain status quo as
exists and this court relegated the power to decide the ownership of
the land to the concerned jurisdictional civil court.
64. Since Khurai Ahongpung has been declared as State
Protected Monument and devotees are performing poojas and
likewise, the petitioners are also maintaining the Mahavir Mandir and
other temples in the Mahavir Mandir Complex, Telipati where also
poojas are performing by the petitioners, this Court is disposing of
the writ petitions by holding that the impugned orders are
unsustainable in the eye of law as there was procedural lapse in
issuing the same and also the same were issued with long delay.
Further, the impugned orders are issued in violation of principles of
natural justice.
65. In the result,
(i) The writ petitions are disposed of.
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
P a g e | 46
(ii) The parties are directed to maintain status quo as
on today till the rights with regard to the disputed
land is determined by the civil court.
(iii) It is made clear that the declaration of Khurai
Ahongpung as State Protected Historical site has
not been interfered with by this court.
(iv) Both the petitioners and the defendants in
O.S.No.37 of 2014 pending on the file of Civil
Judge (Senior Division) No.II, Manipur East are
directed to co-operate for early disposal of the
said suit.
(v) The Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.II, Manipur
East is directed to dispose of O.S.No.37 of 2014
uninfluenced by this order as expeditiously as
possible.
(vi) No costs.
66. Registry is directed to issue copy of this order to both
the parties through their WhatsApp/e-mail.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Sushil
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
