Manipur High Court
Tangkhul Naga Long & Anr vs State Of Manipur & 6 Ors on 10 March, 2022
Item No. 17
Digitally
LAIREN signed by
(Through Video Conferencing)
MAYUM LAIRENMAYU
M INDRAJEET
INDRAJ SINGH
Date:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
EET 2022.03.10
AT IMPHAL
15:50:11
SINGH +05'30'
CRP(CRP.Art.227) No. 26 of 2021
Tangkhul Naga Long & anr.
....Petitioners
- Versus -
State of Manipur & 6 ors.
...Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR
10.03.2022
[1] Original (Declaration) Suit No. 1 of 2020 was filed by the State of
Manipur and its authorities in the Education Department before the learned Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Ukhrul, seeking declaration of their title over the suit
lands in Schedule A, B, C & D of the plaint. They also sought a permanent
injunction restraining the defendants from illegally constructing buildings within
Schedule A, C & D lands and disturbing the plaintiffs' possession over the suit
lands; and for costs.
[2] The plaintiffs also filed Judl. Misc. Case No. 1 of 2020 before the
Trial Court under Order 39 Rules 1, 2 & 3 CPC for a temporary injunction
restraining the defendants in the suit from entering into the suit lands in
Schedule A, C & D of the plaint schedule and to restrain them from constructing
buildings therein, pending disposal of the suit. In the first instance, the Trial
Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction on 04.02.2020. However, after
contest by the defendants and upon hearing both parties, the Trial Court
disposed of Judl. Misc. Case, vide order dated 03.03.2020, holding that it was
not inclined to grant an injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. The earlier interim
injunction order was accordingly vacated and cancelled and the plaintiffs' prayer
for a temporary injunction was rejected.
[3] Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs filed Civil Appeal Case No. 1 of
2020 before the learned District Judge, Ukhrul. By Judgment and Order dated
20.02.2021, the Appellate Court held that, in order to avoid irreparable loss to
both parties, the defendants in the suit should be directed to stop further
construction of structures over the suit lands and to maintain status quo until
adjudication as to title and ownership over the suit lands by the Trial Court.
Aggrieved thereby, the contesting defendants in the suit filed the
present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution.
[4] Heard Mr. Mark Khapai, learned counsel for the petitioners; and
Mr. S. Nepolean, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents.
[5] Though various contentious issues were raised and argued before
this Court, the fact remains that the Trial Court is yet to hold a full-fledged trial
and adjudicate upon the issue of title and ownership over the suit lands. It would
therefore be premature for this Court to enter into the realm of disputed
questions of fact.
[6] However, the material placed before this Court demonstrates that,
as on date, the petitioners have already constructed a G + 4 floor building and
only the construction of some walls still need to be completed to put the building
to use. This building is admittedly situated in the land in Schedule D of the plaint
schedule. As rightly opined by the Appellate Court, it would be in the interest of
both parties that no further construction is permitted to be made by the
defendants in the suit lands till the disposal of the suit on merits, but in so far
as this nearly-complete building is concerned, it would be unfair to prevent and
restrain the petitioners from making use of it pending the disposal of the suit.
Mr. Mark Khapai, learned counsel, would state that this building is proposed to
be used for imparting training to young people belonging to the community.
[7] In that view of the matter, the balance of convenience and the
interest of justice tilt in favour of the petitioners being permitted to use this
building, subject to conditions. Mr. Mark Khapai, learned counsel, states that his
clients have been informed of the conditions proposed by this Court and that
they are willing to accept and abide by the same.
[8] The order passed by the Appellate Court is accordingly made
absolute, subject to the modification that the petitioners shall be permitted to
complete and utilize the building already constructed in the land in Schedule D
of the plaint schedule, without creating any third-party interests therein.
Further, they shall not claim any equities or prejudice at the time of disposal of
the suit and shall abide by the decision of the Trial Court apropos the land in
Schedule D. In the event, the respondents/plaintiffs secure declaration of title
in relation to Schedule D land, the petitioners shall demolish the building
constructed therein at their own cost and hand over vacant and peaceful
possession of the said land to the respondents/plaintiffs. The petitioners shall
not make any further construction pending disposal of the suit on merits.
The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above directions.
In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
A copy of this order shall be supplied online or through whatsapp to
the learned counsel for the parties.
CHIEF JUSTICE
Indrajeet
