Manipur High Court
Shri Andy Mangsatabam vs Miss Annie Mangsatabam on 4 July, 2022
KABORA Digitally signed
by
MBAM KABORAMBAM Item Nos.19 & 20
SANDEEP SANDEEP SINGH
Date: 2022.07.07
SINGH 17:15:26 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
CIVIL REVISION PETITION (CRP ART.227) NO. 18 OF 2022
Shri Andy Mangsatabam, aged about 54 years,
s/o late Mangsatabam Iboyaima of Thangmeiband Yumnam Leikai,
P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur.
.....Petitioner
- Versus -
1. Miss Annie Mangsatabam, aged about 57 years
d/o late Mangsatabam Iboyaima of Thangmeiband Yumnam Leikai,
P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur.
..... Principal Respondent
2. Shri Rarry Mangsatabam, aged about 52 years,
s/o late Mangsatabam Iboyaima of Thangmeiband Yumnam Leikai,
P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur.
......Proforma Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION (CRP ART.227) NO. 21 OF 2022
Shri Rarry Mangsatabam, aged about 52 years,
s/o late Mangsatabam Iboyaima of Thangmeiband Yumnam Leikai,
P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur
....Petitioner
- Versus -
1. Miss Annie Mangsatabam, aged about 57 years,
d/o late Mangsatabam Iboyaima of Thangmeiband Yumnam Leikai,
P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur.
...... Principal Respondent
2. Shri Andy Mangsatabam , aged about 54 years,
s/o late Mangsatabam Iboyaima of Thangmeiband Yumnam Leikai,
P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur.
........Proforma Respondent
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR
For the Petitioner in CRP(CRP : Mr. Th.Modhu, Advocate
Art.227) No.18 of 2022
For the Petitioner in CRP(CRP Mr. Rarry Mangsatabam,
Art.227) No.21 of 2022 Party-in-Person
For the Principal Respondent in both : Ms. I. Lenibala, Advocate
cases
Date of Judgment & Order : 04.07.2022
CRP(CRP Art.227) Nos.18 & 21 of 2022 Page 1
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
[1] The Assistant Survey and Settlement Officer, Imphal West-I, passed
order dated 27.12.2005 in Mutation Case No.449/AS & SO -IW-I of 2005, accepting
the plea of Annie Mangsatabam that she had acquired absolute right and title, by
way of inheritance from late Mangsatabam (Ongbi) Punyabati Devi, her mother, and
mutated her name in the revenue records as against the homestead land
admeasuring 0.0498 hectares, covered by CS Dag No 2164 under Patta No.90/1052
equivalent to Patta No.90/158/63/503(New) of Village No.90-Thangmeiband, Imphal
West District, Manipur.
Andy Mangsatabam and Rarry Mangsatabam, being two of the brothers
of Annie Mangsatabam, approached the Revenue Tribunal, Manipur at Lamphelpat,
aggrieved by the aforestated Mutation Order dated 27.12.2005. As there was a long
delay of 5715 days on their part in doing so, they filed Revenue Miscellaneous
(Revenue Petition) Case No.52 of 2021 seeking condonation of the said delay in filing
a revision against the Mutation Order dated 27.12.2005. By judgment and order
dated 18.04.2022, the Tribunal refused to condone the delay and rejected their
application. Aggrieved thereby, Andy Mangsatabam filed CRP No.18 of 2022 while
Rarry Mangsatabam filed CRP No.21 of 2022. Both the CRPs were filed under Article
227 of the Constitution.
[2] Heard Mr. Th. Modhu, learned counsel for Andy Mangsatabam; Mr. Rarry
Mangsatabam, appearing as a party-in-person; and Ms. I.Lenibala Devi, learned
counsel, appearing for Annie Mangsatabam.
CRP(CRP Art.227) Nos.18 & 21 of 2022 Page 2
[3] Before the Tribunal, the two brothers had claimed ignorance of the
Mutation Order dated 27.12.2005. They pointed out that they were not made parties
to the Mutation Case filed by their sister and had never received any summons from
the revenue authority. They pointed out that Rarry Mangsatabam was residing at
Delhi at the relevant point of time and that Andy Mangsatabam had filed objection
petition dated 26.08.2005 before the Assistant Survey & Settlement Officer, Imphal
West-I, with regard to any mutation being carried out for the subject homestead
land, but despite the same, he was not put on notice by the revenue authority. They
also pointed out that a notice was published by the revenue authority in a vernacular
newspaper 'Thoudang', which was not widely circulated and was not read by them.
They claimed that they came to know of the mutation order only when Andy
Mangsatabam applied for and received a copy of the Jamabandi on 18.10.2021. They
quantified the delay in filing a revision against the said mutation order as 5715 days
and sought condonation on the ground that the delay was bonafide and without any
negligence on their part, as they were unaware of the mutation order.
[4] Annie Mangsatabam filed written objections before the Tribunal claiming
that her brothers had not demonstrated sufficient cause to condone the long delay
on their part. She asserted that they had slept over the matter for 16 years and had
no explanation therefor. She stated that her brothers had knowledge of the entry of
her name in the records and claimed that there was a family arrangement, wherein
they had taken their share of the properties of their deceased mother and, with their
knowledge and consent, she sought mutation of her name for the subject homestead
land. According to her, the question of giving notice to her brothers did not arise.
CRP(CRP Art.227) Nos.18 & 21 of 2022 Page 3
[5] The Tribunal noted that the brothers claimed knowledge of the mutation
order only when they obtained a Jamabandi copy on 18.10.2021 and opined that, as
all the siblings lived together in the same house, they could not claim ignorance of
the mutation carried out in favour of their sister. Further, it opined that they ought
to have explained as to what they were doing before 18.10.2021. The Tribunal
accepted the version of Annie Mangsatabam that there was a family arrangement
and that, with the knowledge and consent of her two brothers, Annie Mangsatabam
had applied for entry of her name in the records in relation to the subject homestead
land and, therefore, the question of giving notice to the brothers did not arise at all.
Strangely, the Tribunal opined that sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay must
relate to events or circumstances existing before the period of limitation expired and
events or circumstances arising after expiry of the limitation period would not
constitute sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. Concluding that the two
brothers were negligent and did not take steps in time, the Tribunal refused to
condone the delay and rejected their application.
[6] At this stage, it would be apposite to note the statutory scheme obtaining
under the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (for brevity, 'the Act
of 1960'). Section 46 thereof relates to mutations and sub-section (1) states that
there shall be maintained for every Village a Register for Mutations in such form and
in such manner as may be prescribed. Section 46(2), to the extent relevant, provides
that any person acquiring by inheritance any right in land shall report the acquisition
of such right to the competent authority within three months from the date of such
acquisition. Section 46(3) prescribes the procedure to be followed by the competent
CRP(CRP Art.227) Nos.18 & 21 of 2022 Page 4
authority thereafter. It states to the effect that the said authority shall enter the
substance of every report made to it under Section 46(2) in the Register of Mutations
and, at the same time, post a complete copy of the entry in a conspicuous place in
the Village and shall give written intimation to all persons appearing from the Record
of Rights or the Register of Mutations to be interested therein and to any other
persons whom it has reason to believe to be interested therein. Section 46(4) states
that any objection to an entry made under Section 46(3) in the Register of Mutations,
made either orally or in writing, shall be entered by the competent authority in the
Register of Disputed Cases. Section 46(5) provides that objections made under
Section 46(4) shall be decided on the basis of possession by the competent authority
and the order disposing of objections shall be recorded in the Register of Mutations.
Rule 83 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1961 (for
brevity, 'the Rules of 1961'), deals with 'Reports for Mutation' to be made under
Section 46(2) of the Act of 1960. Rule 83(1) states that all such reports shall be in
Form 16 and further provides that the applicant shall also submit sufficient number
of spare copies of the report for intimation to the persons interested. The implication
of Rule 83(1) is that the applicant, who submits the report for mutation, must disclose
the details of the persons interested and also file sufficient number of spare copies
of the report for mutation for service upon them. Rule 83(2) states that any person
who prays for mutation in the Record of Rights shall also state in his report the details
of the lands already held by him or any members of his family as land owner or
tenant or mortgagee with possession or otherwise. This is obviously for the purpose
of indicating the identities of the persons who may be interested.
CRP(CRP Art.227) Nos.18 & 21 of 2022 Page 5
[7] This being the procedure postulated in the Act of 1960 and the Rules of
1961, it may be noted that Mangsatabam (Ongbi) Punyabati Devi, the erstwhile
owner of the subject homestead land, died as long back as on 02.02.1990.
Admittedly, Annie Mangsatabam submitted a 'Report for Mutation' in Form 16 only
on 08.12.2005, long after the three-month period stipulated in Section 46(2) of the
Act of 1960. Therein, she claimed that the manner of her acquisition was by way of
inheritance of the whole land but she did not indicate the date of such acquisition,
though the column in Form 16 required the date to be indicated. Further, Rule 83(1)
of the Rules of 1961 mandated that she should furnish sufficient number of spare
copies of the report for intimation to the persons interested. By implication, this
required her to disclose the number of persons who would be interested along with
their details and supply sufficient copies of her report for service upon them.
However, she did not even disclose the fact that she was not the sole heir of late
Mangsatabam (Ongbi) Punyabati Devi. Be it noted that, apart from Andy
Mangsatabam and Rarry Mangsatabam, her two brothers who are litigating presently,
there is one other brother, namely, Mangsatabam Harekrishna. As per Rule 83(2) of
the Rules of 1961, she had to disclose other landholdings of all her family members
and had she done so, that would have indicated her brothers' existence. However,
that procedure was also cast to the winds by her.
[8] It appears that a notice was straightaway published in Thoudang
Manipuri newspaper. In this regard, it may be noted that para 25 of Schedule III to
the Rules of 1961 deals with 'Service of Summons'. Para 25(1) states that the
summons shall, if practicable, be served personally on the person to whom it is
CRP(CRP Art.227) Nos.18 & 21 of 2022 Page 6
addressed or failing him; upon his recognized agent; or any adult male member of
his family, who usually resides with him. Para 25(2) states that if service cannot be
effected as above or if acceptance of service so made is refused, the summons may
be served by pasting a copy thereof on the door of the usual or last known place of
residence of the person to whom it is addressed or by publication in a newspaper.
As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Yallawwa (Smt.) vs. Shantavva (Smt.)
{(1997) 11 SCC 159}, substituted service through newspaper publication cannot
be resorted to without first following the ordinary procedure laid down for service of
summons.
[9] In the case on hand, no steps were taken by the Assistant Survey and
Settlement Officer, Imphal West-I, Manipur, to issue any summons, as Annie
Mangsatabam did not disclose the names of the persons interested and the revenue
authority took no steps to ascertain the identity of such persons, though Section
46(3) of the Act of 1960 required it of him. On the other hand, the notice dated
16.12.2005 was published on 17.12.2005 in Thoudang Manipuri newspaper,
mentioning only the name of Annie Mangsatabam and late Mangsatabam (Ongbi)
Punyabati Devi, the deceased owner. Further, without even ascertaining and
mentioning their names, the Assistant Survey and Settlement Officer stated in the
notice that the descendants of the deceased pattadar may object to the application
of Annie Mangsatabam in writing before 23.12.2005. Significantly, there is no
explanation as to how the notice was published in the newspaper on 17.12.2005, as
there is no order of the revenue authority permitting it in terms of Para 25 of
Schedule-III to the Rules of 1961. No such order was produced either before the
CRP(CRP Art.227) Nos.18 & 21 of 2022 Page 7
Tribunal or before this Court by Annie Mangsatabam. Hence, publication of the notice
in Manipuri language in Thoudang Manipuri newspaper does not come to her aid.
[10] The haphazard and careless manner of giving effect to the statutory
procedure by all concerned is therefore patent and manifest. In that context, when
the two brothers, Andy Mangsatabam and Rarry Mangsatabam, claimed ignorance of
the mutation proceedings initiated 15 years after the death of the owner, the Tribunal
ought to have been more circumspect in dealing with their condone delay petition.
On the contrary, the Tribunal went to the extent of accepting the unilateral claim of
Annie Mangsatabam that there was a family arrangement, whereby she had exclusive
right over the subject homestead land, and that she had applied for mutation with
the consent and knowledge of her brothers. The Tribunal added insult to injury by
holding that there was no necessity to even put them on notice in the light of such
an arrangement. There was no valid basis for the Tribunal to accept the unilateral
claim of Annie Mangsatabam in that regard and hold to this effect.
[11] That apart, the understanding of the Tribunal that events and
circumstances prior to expiry of the limitation period alone have to be taken into
consideration for the purpose of condonation of delay, and not the events thereafter,
is wholly untenable in law. It is well settled that even the delay after expiry of the
period of limitation must be explained and, in that context, events and circumstances
after the expiry of the period of limitation, would be very much relevant. Even if it is
accepted that the brothers must also explain the delay prior to the expiry of limitation,
the aforestated aberrations in procedure by the revenue authority, in addition to
those committed by Annie Mangsatabam, clearly constituted sufficient cause for the
CRP(CRP Art.227) Nos.18 & 21 of 2022 Page 8
brothers to successfully claim ignorance of the fact that their sister had belatedly
applied for and obtained mutation, asserting absolute rights.
[12] Though Annie Mangsatabam claimed that her brothers had knowledge of
the mutation order and that they were liable to explain the delay of 16 years, no
material whatsoever was ever produced by her, be it before the Tribunal or before
this Court, in proof of such knowledge.
[13] That apart, it may also be noted that Andy Mangsatabam had submitted
objection petition dated 26.08.2005 to the Assistant Survey and Settlement Officer,
Imphal West-I, stating that he should not allow any change in the ownership of the
subject homestead land, which stood in the name of his late mother. In spite of
receiving this letter long before the submission of the Report for Mutation by Annie
Mangsatabam on 08.12.2005, the said revenue authority did not even deem it
necessary to put Andy Mangsatabam on notice and merely published the newspaper
notice without requisite particulars.
[14] Ms. I. Lenibala, learned counsel, would contend that the litigation
initiated by Andy Mangsatabam and Rarry Mangsatabam is bad for non-joinder of a
necessary party, inasmuch as Mangsatabam Harekrishna, the other brother, has not
been arrayed as a party. However, that would be an issue to be considered by the
Tribunal in the Revenue Revision case when it is taken up for adjudication on merits.
That aspect has no role to play in consideration of the condone delay petition filed
by the other two brothers in relation to the Revenue Case sought to be filed by them
against the Mutation Order dated 27.12.2005. It is therefore left open to Annie
CRP(CRP Art.227) Nos.18 & 21 of 2022 Page 9
Mangsatabam to raise the said issue of non-joinder of a necessary party before the
Tribunal at the appropriate time.
[15] On the above analysis, this Court finds that adequate grounds were made
out by the two brothers to constitute sufficient cause for condonation of the delay on
their part in filing a revision against the Mutation Order dated 27.12.2005. The
Tribunal grievously erred in non-suiting them at the threshold by refusing to condone
the said delay on the ground that they failed to substantiate sufficient cause.
The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly allowed, condoning the delay
of 5715 days in the presentation of the Revenue Revision case by the two brothers
against the Order dated 27.12.2005 in Mutation Case No. 449/AS & SO-IW-I of 2005
on the file of the Assistant Survey and Settlement Officer, Imphal West-I, Manipur.
The Tribunal shall number the said revision, if it is otherwise found to be in order,
and adjudicate the same on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously, after
hearing all the parties concerned.
In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
Opendro
CRP(CRP Art.227) Nos.18 & 21 of 2022 Page 10
