Ngulzathang Neihsial vs The State Of Manipur
2022 Latest Caselaw 198 Mani

          Digitally                                                                       Page |1
SHAMU     signed by
          SHAMURAILA
RAILATP   TPAM SUSHIL
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AM        SHARMA
                                                  AT IMPHAL
          Date:
SUSHIL    2022.05.11
SHARMA    14:48:07
          +05'30'
                                                WP(C) No. 260 of 2018

                        Ngulzathang Neihsial, aged about 46 years, S/o Thianlam, a
                        permanent resident of Nazareth village, Saikot, P.O. and P.S.
                        & District - Churachandpur, Manipur.

                                                                                  ...Petitioner
                                                           -Versus-

                        1. The      State     of    Manipur,      through     the     Principal
                            Secretary/Commissioner (TA & Hills), Government of
                            Manipur.

                        2. The Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur District,
                            Manipur.

                        3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Tuibong, Churachandpur
                            District, Manipur.

                        4. Letkhochinthang Valte @ Letboi Valte, aged about 56
                            years, S/o (L) Zenhang, a permanent resident of
                            Zenhang       Lamka      Village,    P.O.,     P.S.   &    District-
                            Churachandpur, Manipur.
                                                                           .... Respondents.

WP(C) No. 504 of 2018 Ngulzathang Neihsial, aged about 46 years, S/o Thianlam, a permanent resident of Nazareth village, Saikot, P.O. and P.S. & District - Churachandpur, Manipur.

...Petitioner

WP(C) No. 260 of 2018 with WP(C) No. 504 of 2018 Page |2

-Versus-

1. The State of Manipur, through the Principal Secretary/Commissioner (TA & Hills), Government of Manipur, Old Secretariat building, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Manipur-795001.

2. The Deputy Commissioner/District Programme Co-

ordinator (MGNREGS), DRDA, Churachandpur District, Manipur-795128.

3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Chiengkawnpang, Churachandpur District, Manipur - 795128.

4. Letkhochinthang Valte @ Letboi Valte, aged about 56 years, S/o (L) Zenhang, a permanent resident of Zenhang Lamka Village, P.O., P.S. & District- Churachandpur, Manipur-795128.

.... Respondents.

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN

For the Petitioners :: Mr. H. Kenajit, Advocate in both the writ petitions

For the Respondents :: Mr. M. Rarry, Addl. AG. for the respondents No. 1,2 and 3 in both the writ petitions.

Mr. S. Serto T. Kom, Advocate for the respondent No. 4 in both the writ petitions.

Date of Hearing and
reserving Judgment & Order ::               29.03.2022

Date of Judgment & Order            ::      11.05.2022

WP(C) No. 260 of 2018 with WP(C) No. 504 of 2018 Page |3

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

W.P.(C) No.260 of 2018 has been filed to quash the

order dated 26.9.2017 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer,

Tuibong, Churachandpur District.

2. W.P.(C) No.504 of 2018 has been filed to quash the

impugned order dated 9.5.2018 issued by the Deputy

Commissioner/District Programme Coordinator, DRDA,

Churachandpur District.

3. Heard Mr. H. Kenajit, learned counsel for the

petitioner; Mr. M. Rarry, the learned Additional Advocate General

for the State respondents No. 1 to 3, and Mr. Serto T. Kom,

learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.

4. The case of the petitioner is that he has purchased

a piece of land measuring an extent of 15 hectares in Saikot on

12.7.2013 from the Chief of Saikot and developed his own

village, namely, Nazareth. Though the village of the petitioner lies

within the Saikot Village, the petitioner and the villagers entered

WP(C) No. 260 of 2018 with WP(C) No. 504 of 2018 Page |4

their names for electoral roll in 58-Churachandpur and also to get

the schemes of the Government, their names were entered under

the Zenhang Village due to easy accessibility towards the

Zenhang side as it was very difficult to reach the Saikot main

land. However, the petitioner not seeing any future for its village

under Zenhang, retracted back to its original jurisdiction i.e.

under the Saikot village and the names of the petitioner and its

villagers are now included in the electoral roll of 59-Saikot in the

recent Manipur Assembly Election. The Government had also

created new Sub Divisional Office and the petitioner's village

comes under SDO, Saikot.

5. Further case of the petitioner is that he had been

paying separate Hill House Tax as a Machet/Hamlet of Saikot

village since 2014. As the tax has to be paid regularly, the

petitioner again applied for paying Hill House Tax. However, to

the utmost surprise of the petitioner, the Sub Divisional Officer,

Tuibong vide impugned order dated 26.9.2017 cancelled the

Machet order dated 22.5.2017 without giving any opportunity to

the petitioner on the mere complaint of the fourth respondent

Letkhochinthang Valte @ Letboi Valte. Challenging the

impugned order dated 26.9.2017, the petitioner has filed

W.P.No.260 of 2018.

WP(C) No. 260 of 2018 with WP(C) No. 504 of 2018 Page |5

6. The further case of the petitioner is that Nazareth

village could not be developed as it should have been under the

village authority of Zenhang Lamka and as such the petitioner

approached for taking the benefits of the scheme of Government

from its original administrative jurisdiction i.e. Saikot village

authority. However, the fourth respondent is fighting tooth and

nail so that the petitioner village is not reverted back to its original

jurisdiction and the respondents 2 and 3 are also helping the

fourth respondent by passing the impugned order dated 9.5.2018

arbitrarily without any material. Challenging the said order, the

petitioner has filed W.P.No.504 of 2018.

7. In W.P.No.260 of 2018, the second respondent filed

affidavit-in-opposition stating that as per the records maintained

by the second respondent, there is no order recognising the

petitioner as Chief of a Village by the Government. The sale deed

dated 12.7.2013 was executed between Kawlhminglien, Chief of

Saikot as vendor and the petitioner as vendee for hill land

measuring an area of 15 hectares. As per the observation made

by the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur dated 12.9.2011,

the jamabandi produced by the petitioner was based on a forged

sale deed executed between Genlal and Ngulzathang and the

said sale deed was in fact cancelled on 14.9.2011. It is stated

WP(C) No. 260 of 2018 with WP(C) No. 504 of 2018 Page |6

that the payment of Hill House Tax since 2014 does not accord

statutory recognition, especially when Nazareth was allowed as

a Machet of Saikot village only on 22.5.2017. This order was

again cancelled vide the impugned order dated 26.9.2017 due to

suppression of material facts at the time of application. Further

the matter regarding shifting of Assembly Constituency for a

particular area may be affected as and when delimitation

exercise conducted. Hence, second respondent prayed for

dismissal of the writ petition.

8. In W.P.(C) No.504 of 2018 also the second

respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that by passing the

impugned order dated 9.5.2018, it has been ordered that the

allocation of works under MGNREGS in respect of Nazareth shall

be done through the village authority of Zenhang Lamka as

Nazareth falls within the administrative jurisdiction of Zenhang

Lamka village as per the verification report of BDO/Lamka TD

Block and Nazareth is neither a Machet/Hamlet of Saikot village

nor a recognised/census village authority in terms of Circular

dated 7.1.2009 issued by the Commissioner (RD & PR),

Government of Manipur. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ

petition.

WP(C) No. 260 of 2018 with WP(C) No. 504 of 2018 Page |7

9. The fourth respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition in

W.P.(C) No.260 of 2018 stating that by the order dated

12.9.2011, the Deputy Commissioner held that the jamabandi is

a fake document and as such no process for recognition of the

petitioner's village can be proceeded. It is stated that though the

petitioner might have purchased a hill land from the Chief of

Saikot village, yet it is admitted by the petitioner that he and the

people who stays in the locality of Nazareth are under the village

authority of Zenhang Lanka and as such any purchase of land

from another village cannot by itself allow the bifurcating of an

existing village and including the purchase land within the

jurisdiction of the village authority of the village from where the

land is said to be purchased.

10. The said hill land stated to be purchased in the year

2013, but the locality of Nazareth has been under the jurisdiction

of Zenhang Lamka village authority since many years before

2013 and as such, the purchase of the hill land does not change

the portion of the villagers, more so, when almost all the villagers

are settled in their own respective private lands. The Meitei

Christian Leikai objected the proposal for transfer of their job

cards from Zenhang Lamka to Nazareth i.e. the locality of the

petitioner.

WP(C) No. 260 of 2018 with WP(C) No. 504 of 2018 Page |8

11. It is stated that only the Hills Department,

Government of Manipur, which can bifurcate the jurisdiction of

Zenhang Lamka village authority by way of reducing the

jurisdiction and also to increase the jurisdiction of Saikot village

authority by way of increasing the jurisdiction. Hence, the SDO,

Tuibuong, Churachandpur has no authority to issue the order

dated 22.5.2017, thereby allowing Nazareth to be part of Saikot

village authority. Therefore, the SDO, Tuibuong has rightly

cancelled the order dated 22.5.2017 by issuing the impugned

order dated 26.9.2017.

12. The fourth respondent field affidavit-in-opposition in

W.P.(C) No.504 of 2018 stating that the issue of which village

authority is to implement MGNREGS has already settled by this

Court in an order dated 25.1.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No.721 of

2015 and the said decision has attained finality. This Court

decided that the MGNREGS funds are to be routed through the

village authority under which the Nazareth falls. It is stated that

the determination of the jurisdiction of the village authorities of

Saikot village and Zenhang Lamka village should be immediately

preceding the date of order i.e. 25.1.2016, but not after. As such,

the petitioner having admitted that the Nazareth localities have

always been getting Government scheme including MGNREGS

WP(C) No. 260 of 2018 with WP(C) No. 504 of 2018 Page |9

through Zenhang Lamka village (petitioner himself was

Supervisor in implementing the said scheme under the Zenhang

Lamka village) which means under the village authority of

Zenhang Lamka village (village authority being the sole

implementing agency), the impugned order dated 9.5.2018 was

rightly issued and same does not deserves to be interfered.

13. Assailing the impugned order dated 26.9.2017, the

learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the act of the

third respondent in passing the impugned order is arbitrary and

discriminatory and that no opportunity was given to the petitioner

by the third respondent before coming to any conclusion. He

would submit that the Government of Manipur had also recently

developed some Sub Divisional Offices and Nazareth village

being in the area of Saikot village, it now comes under the Saikot

Sub Divisional Office which was previously under Tuibong Sub

Divisional Office. Thus, presently the third respondent does not

have any jurisdiction relating to any matters of Nazareth village.

This clearly shows that Nazareth village is under the Saikot

village. The learned counsel submits that the land wherein the

petitioner is trying to development as a village is the land

purchased from the Chief of Saikot.

WP(C) No. 260 of 2018 with WP(C) No. 504 of 2018 P a g e | 10

14. Similarly, assailing the impugned order dated

9.5.2018, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that

willingness or unwillingness of few individuals cannot determine

the administrative jurisdiction of the place and that the area of

Saikot is already determined by the Court way back in 1950

which is inclusive of Nazareth village and as determined by the

State Government, its revenue jurisdiction is within Saikot and

now their electoral roll has been changed from 58-

Churachandpour to 59-Saikot.

15. The learned counsel further submitted that in the

impugned order dated 9.5.2018, the report of the BDO has been

relied on wherein it has been stated that out of 61 job card

holders 15 have migrated and one had expired and out of the

remaining 45 job card holders, 29 job card holders are willing to

be included under Nazareth and 16 job card holders are willing

to be included under Zenhang Lamka. Even if the report of the

BDO is taken into consideration, the second respondent could

have never cancelled the Nazareth from the village authority of

Saikot.

16. The learned counsel next submitted that while

passing the impugned order dated 9.5.2018, the second

WP(C) No. 260 of 2018 with WP(C) No. 504 of 2018 P a g e | 11

respondent had mainly relied on the Machet cancellation order

dated 26.9.2017 and it seems that the said order dated 26.9.2017

was passed just to support the impugned order. The fourth

respondent does not have any definite area as Zenhang Lamka

village and that the act of the second respondent in passing the

impugned order is arbitrary and bias as discriminatory.

17. Supporting the impugned order dated 26.9.2017,

the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the order

dated 22.5.2017 was obtained by showing a fake jamabandi and

therefore, the third respondent has rightly cancelled the order

dated 22.5.2017. He would submit that the payment of Hill House

Tax is from 2014 only and therefore, the payment of Hill House

Tax does not give statutory recognition, especially when

Nazareth was allowed as a machete of Saikot village only on

22.5.2017.

18. Insofar the impugned order dated 9.5.2018 is

concerned, it is the submission of the learned Additional

Advocate General that there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

He would submit that while passing the impugned order, it has

been ordered that the allocation of works under MGNREGS in

respect of Nazareth shall be done through the village authority of

WP(C) No. 260 of 2018 with WP(C) No. 504 of 2018 P a g e | 12

Zenhang Lamka as Nazareth falls within the administrative

jurisdiction of Zenhang Lamka village as per the verification

report.

19. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent

submitted that the Sub Divisional Officer, Tuibong has no

authority to issue the order dated 22.5.2017 and therefore, it has

been rightly cancelled by issuing the impugned order dated

26.9.2017. In fact, the SDO has no power to issue the order

dated 22.5.2017. He would submit that the order dated 22.5.2017

amounts to recognising Nazareth as a village under Saikot village

when in fact the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur by an

order dated 12.9.2011 has already passed an order rejecting the

case of the petitioner for proceeding for recognition of his village

i.e. Nazareth on some grounds, one of which is the sale deed

produced by him obviously signed by the land owner Genlal and

the jamabandi are fake. The petitioner should not be allowed to

blow hot and cold on the issue of principles of nature justice.

20. As far as the impugned order dated 9.5.2018 is

concerned, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent

submitted that the inclusion of some surveyed land under village

No.100-Saikot will have nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the

WP(C) No. 260 of 2018 with WP(C) No. 504 of 2018 P a g e | 13

village authority of Zenhang Lamka, inasmuch as the No.100-

Saikot is created only for the convenience of record keeping. He

would submit that as per law, the Hills Department, Government

of Manipur is the sole authority who can allow a village to have a

village authority under the relevant Act and Rules and as such

reducing the jurisdiction or increasing the jurisdiction has to be

allowed only by the Hills Department. In the case of Nazareth,

the Hills Department has not till date allow the Nazareth to be

within Saikot village by bifurcating from Zenhang Lamka village

authority.

21. This Court considered the submissions made by

learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials

available on record.

22. The present litigation is the third round of litigation.

The first being W.P.(C) No.721 of 2015 and the said writ petition

was disposed of on 25.1.2015 with a direction to the respondents

to examine the case of the petitioner for allocation of works under

the MGNREGS by ascertaining the village authority under whom

the petitioner and his Nazareth villager falls. On 4.4.2016, the

respondents declared that the allocation of work under

MGNREGS in respect of Nazareth village to be routed through

WP(C) No. 260 of 2018 with WP(C) No. 504 of 2018 P a g e | 14

the village authority of Saikot village. Aggrieved by the order

dated 4.4.2016, the fourth respondent filed W.P.(C) No.401 of

2016 and the said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated

21.10.2016 with an observation that if the fourth respondent is

aggrieved by the order dated 4.4.2016, the petitioner is at liberty

to approach the Deputy Commissioner for review of the same for

which the petitioner has to submit a representation to the Deputy

Commissioner with necessary documents and will also be

entitled to be heard. Till a decision is made, the order dated

4.4.2016 will continue to be in force. Aggrieved by the order

dated 21.10.2016, the fourth respondent filed W.A.No.84 of 2016

and a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said appeal

on 17.5.2017 as withdrawn.

23. In W.P.(C) No.260 of 2018, a challenge is made to

the impugned order dated 26.9.2017 cancelling the order dated

22.5.2017. According to the petitioner, before passing the

impugned order dated 26.9.2017, the petitioner or the villagers

have not been heard and therefore, the said order is in violation

of principles of natural justice. In support, the learned counsel for

the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Ahok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India

WP(C) No. 260 of 2018 with WP(C) No. 504 of 2018 P a g e | 15

and others, (2007) 4 SCC 54, wherein, in paragraphs 26 to 28,

it has been held as follows:

"26. This brings us to the question as to whether the principles of natural justice were required to be complied with. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the audi alteram partem is one of the basic pillars of natural justice which means no one should be condemned unheard. However, whenever possible the principle of natural justice should be followed. Ordinarily in a case of this nature the same should be complied with. Visitor may in a given situation issue notice to the employee who would be effected by the ultimate order that may be passed. He may not be given an oral hearing, but may be allowed to make a representation in writing.

27. It is also, however, well settled that it cannot pout any straitjacket formula. It may not be applied in a given case unless a prejudice is shown. It is not necessary where it would be a futile exercise.

28. A court of law does not insist on compliance with useless formality. It will not issue any such direction where the result would remain the same, in view of the fact situation prevailing or in terms of the legal consequences. Furthermore in this case, the selection of the appellant was illegal. He was not qualified on the cut-off date. Being ineligible to be

WP(C) No. 260 of 2018 with WP(C) No. 504 of 2018 P a g e | 16

considered for appointment, it would have been a futile exercise to give him an opportunity of being heards."

24. On the other hand, it is the say of the Learned

Additional Advocate General that there is no wrong in passing

the impugned order dated 26.9.2017 as the documents produced

by the petitioner at the time of passing the order dated 22.5.2017

are fake Finding that by producing a fake documents the

petitioner has obtained the order dated 22.5.2017, the third

respondent has rightly cancelled the said order vide impugned

order dated 26.9.2017. In support, the learned Additional

Advocate General placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex

Court in the case of Hamza Haji v. State of Kerala and another,

(2006) 7 SCC 416, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed

that a decision obtained by fraud on court and such decision is

liable to be set aside. The

basic principle is that party who secured a decision by fraud

cannot be allowed to enjoy its fruits.

25. Admittedly, nothing has been produced by the

respondent State to show that by playing and/or producing fake

documents, the petitioner has obtained the order dated

22.5.2017, thereby Nazareth village was allowed as a

WP(C) No. 260 of 2018 with WP(C) No. 504 of 2018 P a g e | 17

Machet/Hamlet of Saiko village. In fact, it is seen from order

dated 22.5.2017, before passing the said order, the Sub

Divisional Officer, Tuibong has conducted enquiry and found the

case to be genuine. For proper, appreciation, the order dated

22.5.2017 is extracted hereunder:

"No.21/14/2016/SDO-TBG/(Machet):/111 Shri Ngulzathang Neihsial S/o Shri Thianlam Neihsial, Chief of Nazareth Village, Tuibong Sub-Division has submitted an application to include "NAZARETH VILLAGE" as a Machet of Saikot Village, Tuibong Sub-Divison, Churachandpur District.

2. On this regard, necessary enquiry has been conducted by this Office and found the case to be genuine.

3. No Objection Certification (NOC) has been issued by Shri Kawlhminglien, Chief of Saikot Village (Main Village).

4. Hence, Nazareth Village is hereby allowed as a Machet/Hamlet of Saikot Village.

5. Nazareth Village shall pay Hill House Tax through its main village."

26. At this juncture, the learned Additional Advocate

General argued that the SDO concerned is not the competent

WP(C) No. 260 of 2018 with WP(C) No. 504 of 2018 P a g e | 18

authority to pass such order allowing one village authority to be

part of another recognized village/village authority and, therefore,

the third respondent has rightly passed the impugned order dated

26.9.2017, cancelling the order dated 22.5.2017. The specific

case of the respondents is that all matters relating to recognition

of villages is under the purview of the Revenue Department,

Government of Manipur and, therefore, the SDO has no

authority.

27. As is seen from the records the Nazareth village

consists of survey and unsurvey land (hill area). The survey area

of Nazareth village is within the revenue jurisdiction of Saiko and

presently under the new SDO, Saikot. The petitioner had

purchased a piece of land of Nazareth village including the un-

survey land measuring an area of 15 hectares, which is situated

within the Saikot in Churachandpur District on 12.7.2013 by way

of registered sale deed. According to the petitioner, the

jurisdiction of Saikot village has already been settled by the

judgment dated 5.1.1950 in Review Case No.461 of 1949-50 and

he has also produced the copy folio and its translation.

28. The case of the petitioner is that even though

Nazareth village was a part of Saikot, due to its geographical

WP(C) No. 260 of 2018 with WP(C) No. 504 of 2018 P a g e | 19

location, it was more convenient for the villagers of Nazareth to

go to Zenhang than go to the main land area of Saikot. Therefore,

all the villagers of the Nazareth village included their names for

the purpose of election under 58-Churachandpur Assembly

Constituency and not under 59-Saikot Assembly Constituency

and as such the villagers of the Nazareth village had been getting

benefits of the schemes, including MGNREGS of the

Government through Zenhang village. As the petitioner could not

see any future for his village, if it remained attached to Zenhang

village, the petitioner being Chief of Nazareth thinking about his

village started to develop his village and separated from Zenhang

village. Accordingly, he has submitted an application before the

authority concerned and after finding merits in the application,

the Sub Divisional Officer, Tuibong has rightly included the

Nazareth village as a Machet Hamlet of Saikot village that too

after conducting necessary enquiry.

29. This Court finds some force in the aforesaid

submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Further, only

after hearing and upon enquiry conducted and also after finding

the case of the petitioner to be genuine, the Nazareth village has

been allowed as a Machet/Hamlet of Saikot village and

accordingly, Nazareth village was permitted to pay Hill House

WP(C) No. 260 of 2018 with WP(C) No. 504 of 2018 P a g e | 20

Tax through its main village. However, without any notice to the

petitioner or the villagers of Nazareth, the same Sub Divisional

Officer, who issued the order dated 22.5.2017, has passed the

impugned order dated 26.9.2017 thereby cancelling his earlier

order. The impugned order dated 26.9.2017 reads thus:

"No.2/14/2016/SDO-TBG/Rev(Machet)/207: An application dated 14.09.2017, requesting for cancellation of this office Machet Orders No.2/14/2016/SDO-TBG/(Machet)/111 dated 22.05.2017 has been received from Shri Letkhochinthang Valte.

               2.    The    applicant        has    furnished      relevant
               documents          such        as       Electoral      Roll,

SDO/Churachandpur report dated 25.08.2015, DC/Churachandpur revocation Orders dated 25.08.2015, Advocate, High Court of Manipur letter dated 27.05.2016, SECC List-2011, Hill House Tax Copy, BDO Lamka appointment Orders dated 11.09.2008 etc.

3. This office has examined the said documents and is satisfied about the genuineness of the claims/report.

4. It has been found that the said Machet Orders was obtained by suppressing/hiding certain information/documents at the time of application.

WP(C) No. 260 of 2018 with WP(C) No. 504 of 2018 P a g e | 21

5. Hence, the Machet Orders No.2/14/2016/SDOTBG/(Machet)/111 dated 22.05.2017 is hereby Cancelled."

30. The impugned cancellation order dated 26.9.2017

has been passed mainly based on the application filed by the

fourth respondent. On a reading of the impugned order, this

Court finds that before cancelling the order dated 22.5.2017, the

SDO has not conducted any enquiry. In fact, he has not heard

the petitioner or the villagers of Nazareth. The SDO simply stated

that the office has examined the documents produced by the

fourth respondent and is satisfied about the genuineness of the

claim/request. Satisfaction about the genuineness of the claim of

a party is not a ground to cancel the previous order dated

22.5.2017 when public interest involved. There must be an

enquiry to be conducted before passing such order. The

aggrieved person or villagers are to be heard before passing

such order and therefore, it prima facie proves that impugned

order has been passed totally in violation of the principles of

natural justice. Therefore, the matter needs to the remanded to

the respondent authorities for fresh consideration. The fact

situation obtained in this case requires the authority concerned

WP(C) No. 260 of 2018 with WP(C) No. 504 of 2018 P a g e | 22

who issued the impugned order must hear the parties before

passing the order.

31. As stated supra, though the respondents contended

that the SDO has no authority to pass an order allowing one

village authority to be part of another village authority, nothing

has been produced by them to establish their case. There is also

merit in case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.260 of 2018 and,

therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order

dated 26.9.2017 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Tuibong

and remand the matter to the respondent authorities for fresh

consideration in accordance with law and in the light of the earlier

orders passed by this Court and also the proceedings of the

respondent authorities.

32. Coming to the challenge made in W.P.(C) No.504

of 2018 is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner

argued that the second respondent ought not to have passed the

impugned order dated 9.5.2018 thereby ordering that the

allocation of works under MGNREGS in respect of Nazareth shall

be done through village authority of Zenhang Lamka as Nazareth

falls within the administrative jurisdiction of Zenhang Lamka

village.

WP(C) No. 260 of 2018 with WP(C) No. 504 of 2018 P a g e | 23

33. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate

General submitted that the second respondent has rightly

passed the order impugned dated 9.5.2018 that the works under

MGNREGS in respect of Nazareth shall be done through the

village authority of Zenhang Lamka as per the verification report

of the BDO/Lamka TD Block and, therefore, no interference is

warranted.

34. As held supra, the cancellation of the earlier order

dated 22.5.2017 that the Nazareth is Mache/Hamlet of Saikot

vide impugned order dated 26.9.2017 is in violation of principles

of natural justice. Further, setting aside the order dated

26.9.2017 on the ground of violation of principles of natural

justice will not to test the merits of the claim made by the parties

in W.P.(C) No.540 of 2018.

35. The operative portion of the impugned order in

W.P.(C) No.540 of 2018 reads thus:

"Now, therefore, on perusal of the spot verification reports submitted by the BDO, Lamka TD Block and BDO Saikot TD Block and the document available with the office of District Programme Coordinator, MGNREGS, Churachandpur, it will be proper and justified by passing an order for review of the earlier

WP(C) No. 260 of 2018 with WP(C) No. 504 of 2018 P a g e | 24

order dated 04.04.2016 by DC, Churachandpur for transfer of al Job Car holders of Nazareth from Zenhang Lamka under Lamka TD Block to Saikot TD Block, as such, it is ordered that the allocation of works under MGNREGS in respect of Nazareth shal be done through Village Authority of Zenhang Lamka as Nazareth falls within the administrative jurisdiction of Zenhang Lamka Village as per the verification report of BDO/Lamka TD Block and the Nazareth is neither a Machet/Hamlet of Saikot Village nor a recognized/census village authority in terms of the Circular No.15/1/2005- RD(MC) dated 07.01.2008 issued by the Commissioner (RD&PR) Government of Manipur and Para 2.1 MGNREGS Operational Guideline 2013 (4th edition) which provides that Panchayati Raj Institute/Village Authority will be the sold agency for the implementation of MGNREGS/MGNREGA."

36. On a perusal of the impugned order dated 9.5.2018,

this Court finds that before passing the same, the Deputy

Commissioner has verified the reports of the BDO, Lamka TD

Block and BDO, Saikot TD Block and other related documents

and has reviewed the order dated 4.4.2016 passed by the Deputy

Commissioner, Churachandpur for transfer of all job card holders

of Nazareth from Zenhang Lamka under the Lamka TD Block to

Saikot TD Block. As such, the Deputy Commissioner/District

WP(C) No. 260 of 2018 with WP(C) No. 504 of 2018 P a g e | 25

Programme Co-ordinator (MGNREGS), DRDA, Churachandpur

has ordered that the allocation of works under the MGNREGS in

respect of Nazareth shall be done through the village authority of

Zenhang Lamka as Nazareth falls within the administrative

jurisdiction of Zenhang Lamka village as per the verification

report of BDO, Lamka TD Block. Nothing has been produced by

the petitioner to show that the said order is wrong.

37. It appears that till date the Nazareth village had

been getting benefits of the schemes, including MGNREGS of

the Government through the Zenhang village. Therefore, it would

be appropriate to continue the same for the welfare of the

villagers of Nazareth and also in the interest of justice. Therefore,

this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted insofar

as the impugned order dated 9.5.2018 is concerned.

38. In the result,

(i) W.P.(C) No.260 of 2018 is allowed and the

impugned order dated 26.9.2017 is set aside.

(ii) The matter is remanded to the respondent

authorities for fresh consideration and the

authority concerned is directed to consider the

matter in accordance with law and in the light

WP(C) No. 260 of 2018 with WP(C) No. 504 of 2018 P a g e | 26

of the earlier orders passed by this Court and

also the proceedings of the respondent

authorities, after hearing all concerned.

(iii) While considering the matter, the authority

concerned is directed to invite suggestions of

the petitioner as well as the villagers Nazareth

village.

(iv) The petitioner and the villagers of Nazareth are

given liberty to produce relevant documents

before the authority concerned at the time of

consideration of the matter/hearing and

thereafter, only the authority concerned to take

a decision in this matter, as expeditiously as

possible, preferably within four months from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(v) W.P.(C) No.504 of 2018 is dismissed.

(vi) No costs.

JUDGE

FR/NFR

Sushil

WP(C) No. 260 of 2018 with WP(C) No. 504 of 2018