Awang Kongpal Kongkham Leikai ... vs The State Of Manipur Represented ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 464 Mani

   SHAMURAILATPAM                   Digitally signed by
                                    SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA
   SUSHIL SHARMA                    Date: 2022.10.19 13:35:37 +05'30'
                                                                              Page |1



                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                      AT IMPHAL

                               Crl.Rev. P. No. 11 of 2021


                  Awang Kongpal Kongkham Leikai Development
                  Committee, under Regd. No. 472/SR(IE)/2014,
                  having its registered address at Awang Kongpal
                  Kongkham Leikai, near DDK Imphal in Imphal East
                  District,    Manipur,        P.O.   &     P.S.-      Porompat,
                  represented by its Secretary namely Thokchom
                  Sarat Singh aged about 51 years, S/o (L) Th.
                  Jugeshore Singh of Kongpal Kongkham Leikai, P.O.
                  & P.S.-Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur, Pin
                  No. 795005.
                                                                    ........Petitioner
                                           -Versus-

                  1.    The State of Manipur represented by the
                        Commissioner/             Secretary          (Revenue),
                        Government        of     Manipur,     Office     at    Old
                        Secretariat Imphal, P.O. & P.S.- Imphal, Imphal
                        West District, Manipur- 795001.

                  2.    The       Commissioner/Secretary                (PHED),
                        Government of Manipur and its Office at
                        Secretariat Office, Babupara, Imphal West, Pin
                        No. 795001;




Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021
                                                                   Page |2



                  3.    The Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East District,
                        Manipur and its Office at Porompat, Imphal
                        East, Manipur-795005;

                  4.    The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Imphal East and
                        its Office at Porompat, Imphal East, Manipur-
                        795005;

                  5.    The Chief Engineer, Govt. of Manipur and its
                        Office at Khuyathong PWD Complex, Imphal,
                        Manipur-795001.

                                           ........Official Respondents

6. The Keystone Pvt. Ltd. being Regd.

U45200TG2005PTCO45334 and its registered Office at House No. 8-2-338/6, Road No. 3, Panchavati Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500634, Telangana India and its present address is at M.G. Avenue, Thangal Bazar, P.O.

- Imphal, P.S.- City, Imphal West, Manipur- 795001.

...........Private Respondent

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

For the Petitioners :: Mr. Ajoy Pebam, Advocate

For the Respondents :: Mr. H. Samarjit, Addl. PP Mr. Th. Tolapishak, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.

Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021
                                                                        Page |3



         Date of Hearing and
         reserving Judgment & Order ::          04.07.2022

         Date of Judgment & Order          ::   18.10.2022

                                 JUDGMENT AND ORDER
                                       (CAV)

This criminal revision petition has been filed by the

petitioner under Section 401 read with Section 397 and 398

Cr.P.C. against the order dated 28.9.2020 in Eviction Criminal

Miscellaneous Case No.1 of 2020 passed by the fourth

respondent under Section 133 Cr.P.C. read with Section 15 of

the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960.

2. Heard Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel for the

petitioner; Mr. H. Samarjit, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

for the respondent State and learned counsel for the sixth

respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is

the absolute owner and possessor of piece of homestead land

under Patta No.23/296, Imphal East Tahasil, Porompat Sub-

Division, covered by C.S. Dag No.31/597 measuring an extent

of 0.90 acre Ingkhol Class situated at 23-Khongkham Leikai

Revenue Village and the said land has been occupying by the

petitioner without any disturbances from all quarters. Kongpal

Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 Page |4

Makha Kongkham Leikai Development Committee formed by

the localities of Kongpal Makha Kongkham Leikai was the

owner of the land in question and the revenue records stood in

the name of Kongpal Makha Kongkham Leikai. Later on, the

name was changed into the present petitioner's name in

consonance with the name of Awang Kongpal Kongkham Leikai

Development Committee.

4. Further case of the petitioner is that the land in

question is recorded in the name of the petitioner in the relevant

land records during survey and the petitioner has been paying

land revenue regularly since 1964 to till date. Prior to the

recording in the Jamabandhi Patta as Awang Kongpal

Kongkham Leikai Development Committee, the land measuring

an extent of 0.43 acres under Imphal East Tahasil situated at

23-Khongkham Leikai Revenue Village was recorded as

Kongpal Makha Kongkham Leikai in the chitta. However, the

petitioner has been in possession of an area of 0.90 acre of the

said land and accordingly, the revenue officials have corrected

the area of the land in question from 0.43 acre to 0.90 acre

during survey.

Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 Page |5

5. According to the petitioner, the members of the

petitioner have been possessing and enjoying the said land by

constructing 5 semi-pucca shop buildings and rented out to

different individuals for their business purpose for the last many

years. While so, on 28.9.2020 at about 7.30 P.M., without

giving any prior notice, a team of police personal of Porompat

Police Station came at the land in question and asked for

removal of the structure constructed at the said land and when

the petitioner asked for producing any documents regarding the

removal of the structure from the said land, they failed to

produce any documents and left immediately. On 29.9.2020 at

about 9.30 A.M., the officials of the fourth respondent along with

police personnel without giving prior notice to the petitioner and

the tenants caused the impugned conditional order dated

28.9.2020 in Eviction Cril. Misc. Case No.1 of 2020 under

Section 133 Cr.P.C. read with Section 15 of the Manipur Land

Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 and started demolition

of five shops and also other two vacant room buildings thereby

dispossessed the petitioner from the said land. Thereafter, the

said land was enclosed and bounded with C1 sheet brought by

them and dispossessed illegally. Assailing the said action of

Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 Page |6

the fourth respondent and its officials, the present criminal

revision petition has been filed.

6. Opposing the petition, the respondents 1,3 and 4

filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that as per the letter dated

28.9.2020 submitted by the Director, Settlement and Land

Records, Manipur, the land covered by C.S. Dag No.31

measuring an extent of 59.17 acre situated at revenue village

No.23/Kongkham Leikai is a Sarkari Khas and that one club

namely Kongpal Student Club has been recorded in remark

column No.18 of Dag chitta as an encroacher for an area of 3.32

acre. Further, in the said letter, there is no allotment order

issued by the Government in favour of Awang Kongpal

Kongkham Leikai Development Committee. Therefore, the

petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition. No right

whatsoever of the petitioner has been violated by the impugned

order. Rather by false claim and baseless assertion, the

petitioner is hindering the development works and pubic

interest. The grounds raised in the petition for challenging the

impugned order are not at all maintainable in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 Page |7

7. The sixth respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition

stating that the sixth respondent is the work agency and they

have been awarded contract for construction of integrated water

supply project for Imphal Planning Area Phase-III at the

estimated cost of Rs.231,46,20,000/- and two years period was

fixed for completion of the work from the date of issuance of the

work order. Accordingly, the sixth respondent started work

since 21.10.2020, however, stopped the construction works

from 23.6.2021 in compliance of the interim order dated

30.4.2021 passed by this Court. It is stated that the criminal

revision petition is devoid of merits and the petitioner is not

entitled to the relief sought in the criminal revision petition.

8. Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel

for the petitioner submitted that without verification of the land

in question and without issuing prior notice, the impugned

conditional order dated 28.9.2020 has been issued by the fourth

respondent despite knowing the fact that the petitioner is the

owner of the land and revenue records stood in the name of the

petitioner. He would submit that before or at the time of initiating

the eviction case, the fourth respondent never issued a show

cause notice to the petitioner and its tenants. As such, the

Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 Page |8

conditional order dated 28.9.2020 was not made in accordance

with law and therefore is not sustainable in the eye of law.

9. The learned counsel further submitted that the

land in question is under the possession of the petitioner and its

tenants, as the name of the petitioner is still mentioned in the

records maintained by the revenue department. Moreover, the

officials of the revenue department are collecting revenue tax

from the petitioner till date.

10. The learned counsel urged that after the

demolition of structures constructed over the land in question,

the respondents 2 and 5 through the sixth respondent initiated

construction of water reservoir over the said land and still the

construction is going in full swing.

11. The learned counsel next submitted that the act of

omission on the part of the fourth respondent to draw up a

preliminary order, which is a sine qua non for initiating

proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. and without following

the procedure provided for by Section 138 Cr.P.C., the

impugned conditional order made by the fourth respondent is

not sustainable and is vitiated. In fact, the fourth respondent

Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 Page |9

erred in not properly appreciating the effect of non-compliance

with the mandatory requirements of drawing up a preliminary

order before proceeding under Section 133 Cr.P.C. Thus, the

conditional order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, cannot be

sustained and the same is liable to be dismissed, as without

adherence to the principles of natural justice, the said order has

been passed.

12. Per contra, Mr. H. Samarjit, the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor appearing for the official respondents

submitted that the present criminal revision petition was filed

belatedly on 28.4.2021 after a gap of nearly 7 months with no

explanation for the delay. He would submit that till date the

petitioner is unable to produce any allotment order to establish

that the petitioner is the lawful owner of the piece of land and

that the so called Jamabandi produced by the petitioner is fake

as per available land records. The latest Dag chitta shows that

the piece of land still stands as Government land.

13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further

submitted that the petitioner, assuming to be true owner, has

been cheating poor people whom they had taken as tenants and

collected rent from them while at the same time stalling the

Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 P a g e | 10

completion of the water supply project. According to the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor, following the eviction notice,

eviction had been carried out and a construction work started

for construction of a water supply project and that by the time

the petitioner filed this criminal revision petition, half of the work

was completed and the remaining work stalled after the

petitioner obtained an interim order from this Court.

14. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged

that in certain cases the principles of natural justice need not be

strictly followed as in the instant case where the petitioner has

approached this Court with fake Jamabandi. When balanced

with public interest like a drinking water supply project like in the

present case and the unsubstantial claim of the petitioner the

balance of justice need to tilt in favour of public interest and not

the selfish claim of the petitioner.

15. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor added

that taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances

and the documents produced on record, the Court may reject

the claim of the petitioner in order to protect and promote public

interest and basic necessity of life like the provision of clean

drinking water in and around the District Headquarters of Imphal

Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 P a g e | 11

East, a growing town area in the heart of Imphal. Thus, a prayer

is made to dismiss the criminal revision petition.

16. Mr. Th. Tolapishak, the learned counsel for the

sixth respondent submitted that the sixth respondent is the work

agency of the work called "Water Supply Project for Manipur

State (SH: Integrated Water Supply Project for Imphal Planning

Area Phase-III, Package: IWS P-II (W)" and the work order was

issued on 20.5.2020 by the Executive Engineer of Water Supply

Maintenance Division-II, PHED, Manipur. Accordingly, an

agreement dated 10.7.2020 was executed between the

respondent State and the sixth respondent. Pursuant to the

work order and the agreement, the sixth respondent started the

construction works since 21.10.2020. However, as per the

interim order of this Court dated 30.4.2021, the work has been

stopped.

17. This Court considered the rival submissions and

also perused the materials available on record.

18. The grievance of the petitioner is that they are the

lawful owners of the homestead land covered under C.S. Dag

No.31/597 measuring an extent of 0.90 acre and the members

Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 P a g e | 12

of the petitioner have constructed five shop buildings over the

land and leased out to tenants. It is submitted that the petitioner

is paying tax to the land in question. While so, without giving

any prior notice, the fourth respondent started demolition of

structures over the land in question. According to the petitioner,

the impugned conditional order dated 28.9.2020 was issued

without following the provisions of law.

19. On the other hand, it is the first and foremost plea

of the respondent State that challenge to the conditional order

dated 28.9.2020 was made belatedly and that the petitioner has

no locus standi to file the criminal revision petition.

20. Admittedly, the conditional order impugned in this

criminal revision petition was passed on 28.9.2020 and the

criminal revision petition challenging the said order was filed on

28.4.2021, almost after a delay of 7 months. The delay in filing

the criminal revision petition has not been properly explained by

the petitioner. If really the petitioner is aggrieved by the eviction

notice, it ought to have filed the criminal revision petition

immediately. However, the petitioner failed to do so, which itself

proves that the petitioner has no valid right over the land in

question. In view of the failure of proper explanation

Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 P a g e | 13

forthcoming from the side of the petitioner in not approaching

the Court immediately after passing the impugned order, this

Court is of the view that the petitioner has slept over the matter

for more than 7 months and had filed the criminal revision

petition belatedly.

21. Coming to the challenge made to the impugned

conditional order dated 28.9.2020, the case of the petitioner is

that the homestead land covered by C.S. Dag No.31/597

measuring an extent of 0.90 acre Ingkhol Class situated at 23-

Khongkham Leikai Revenue Village is a private property

recorded in the name of the petitioner and, as such, the

respondents, particularly the fourth respondent, do not have

any jurisdiction to issue the impugned order under Section 133

of Cr.P.C. or under Section 15 of the Manipur Land Revenue

and Land Reforms Act, 1960.

22. Though the petitioner contended that the land

under Patta No.23/296 (New), Imphal East Tahasil, Porompat

Sub-Division covered by C.S. Dag No.31/597, measuring 0.90

acre Ingkhol Class situated at 23-Khongkham Leikai Revenue

Village is a private property belongs to the petitioner, nothing

has been produced to prove the same.

Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 P a g e | 14

23. The petitioner claims that prior to the recording in

the Jamabandi patta as Awang Kongpal Kongkham Leikai

Development Committee, the land measuring an area of 0.43

acre was recorded as Kongpal Makha Kongkham Leikai in the

Dag chitha and taking note of the possession of the area of 0.90

acre by the petitioner, the official has corrected the area of land

in question from 0.43 acre to 0.90 acre. The said plea has not

been substantiated by production of documents.

24. On a perusal of the Dag Chitha annexed to the

criminal revision petition, this Court finds that at column No.1,

the C.S. Dag number has been mentioned as 31/179(A) and

extent has been mentioned as 43 acre. The notice impugned

refers C.S. Dag No.31/597 under new Patta No.295 of 25-

Kongkham Leikai Revenue Village. The Dag chitha referred by

the petitioner refers to C.S. Dag No.31/179(A), which clearly

shows that the Dag Chitha referred by the petitioner is not

related to the land in question. Anyhow, as stated supra, the

respondent authorities initiated action to remove the

encroachment in the land covered by C.S. Dag No.31

measuring an extent of 59.17 acre. Therefore, whatever the

Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 P a g e | 15

encroachment in C.S. Dag No.31, the respondent authorities

have taken action to remove the same.

25. It is the say of the respondent State that the

Director of Settlement and Land Records addressed a letter to

the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Imphal East stating that the land

covered by C.S. Dag No.31 measuring an extent of 59.17 acre

situated at No.23-Kongkham Leikai is Sarkari Khas and lot of

encroachments were made on the said land, including the club

namely Kongpal Student Club, Kongpal Porompat DC Road

encroached an area of 3.32 acre. Pursuant to the letter of the

Director of Settlement and Land Records, the fourth respondent

issued the impugned conditional order directing the

encroachers to remove the kutcha structures put up on the land

in C.S. Dag No.31.

26. According to the petitioner, the omission on the

part of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Porompat to draw up a

preliminary order, which is a sine qua non for initiating

proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. and without following

the procedure provided for by Section 138 Cr.P.C., the order

made by the said authority directing the petitioner to remove the

encroachment/obstruction is unsustainable.

Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 P a g e | 16

27. The guns of Section 133 go into action wherever

there is public nuisance. The public power of the Magistrate

under the Code is a public duty to the members of the public

who are victims of the nuisance, and so he shall exercise it

when the jurisdictional facts are present. "All power is a trust -

that we are accountable for its exercise - that, from the people,

and for the people, all springs and all must exist." The conduct

of the trade must be injurious in presenti to the health or

physical comfort of the community. There must, at any rate, be

an imminent danger to the health or the physical comfort of the

community in the locality in which the trade or occupation is

conducted. Unless there is such imminent danger to the health

or physical comfort of the community in the locality in which the

trade or occupation is conducted. Unless there is such imminent

danger to the health or physical comfort of that community or

the conduct of the trade and occupation is in fact injurious to the

health or the physical comfort of that community, an order under

Section 133 cannot be passed. A conjoint reading of Sections

133 and 138 of the Code discloses that it is the function of the

Magistrate to conduct an enquiry and to decide as to whether

there was reliable evidence or not to come to the conclusion to

act under Section 133.

Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 P a g e | 17

28. Section 133 of Cr.P.C. deals with maintenance of public

order and tranquillity. It is a part of the heading "public

nuisance". The term "nuisance" as used in law is not a term

capable of exact definition and it has been pointed in out in

Halsbury's Laws of England that:

"even in the present day there is not entire agreement as to whether certain acts or omissions shall be classed as nuisances or whether they do not rather fall under other divisions of the law of tort."

29. Nuisance is an inconvenience which materially

interferes with the ordinary physical comfort of human

existence. It is not capable of precise definition. To bring in

application of Section 133 of Cr.P.C., there must be imminent

danger to the proper and consequential nuisance to the public.

The nuisance is the concomitant act resulting in danger to the

life or property due to likely collapse, etc. The object and

purpose behind Section 133 is essentially to prevent public

nuisance and involves a sense of urgency in the sense that if

the Magistrate fails to take recourse immediately, irreparable

danger would be done to the public. It applies to a condition of

the buisance at the time when the order is passed and it is not

Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 P a g e | 18

intended to apply to future likelihood or what may happen at

some later point of time. It does not deal with all potential

nuisances and on the other hand applies when the nuisance is

in existence. It has to be noted that sometimes there is

confusion between Section 133 and Section 144 of Cr.P.C.

While the latter is more general provision the former is more

specific. While the order under the former is conditional, the

order under the latter is absolute [See State of M.P. v. Kedia

Leather & Liquor Limited, (2003) 7 SCC 389].

30. On a perusal of the impugned order dated

28.9.2020, it has been stated that pursuant to the letter of the

Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East District, the Director of

Settlement and Land Records conducted enquiry and reported

that the land covered by C.S. Dag No.31 measuring an extent

of 59.17 acre situated at Revenue Village No.23 Kongkham

Leikai is a "Sarkari Khas" and also reported one club namely

"Kongpal Student Club, Kongpa lPorompat DC Road, Imphal

East District has been recorded in the remark column No.18 of

Dag chitha as an encroacher for an area 3.32 acre and further

reported that 5 (five) individuals were also encroached upon

C.S. Dag No.31. The impugned order also indicates that it has

Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 P a g e | 19

now become necessary to remove the structures put up in C.S.

Dag No.31 at the earliest, as the same has not only caused

nuisance to the public, but also cause hindrance to the

development works to be taken up by the Government.

31. As per Section 15 of the of the Manipur Land

Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, any person who

occupies or continues to occupy any land belonging to the

Government without lawful authority shall be regarded as a

trespasser and may be summarily evicted therefrom by the

competent authority and any building or other construction

erected or anything deposited on such land, if not removed

within such reasonable time as such authority may from time to

time fix for the purpose, shall be liable to be forfeited to the

Government and to be disposed of in such manner as the

competent authority may direct. In the present case, the

petitioner was occupying the land belonging to the Government

without lawful authority and therefore, the competent authority

under the provisions of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land

Reforms Act, 1960 has initiated action against the petitioner and

similar encroachers who encroached upon the Government

land in C.S. Dag No.31 measuring an extent of 59.17 acres.

Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 P a g e | 20

32. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the

non-passing of preliminary order before initiating proceedings

under Section 133 Cr.P.C. is not vitiated the impugned

conditional order, as the action of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,

Porompat to remove the encroachments in C.S. Dag No.31

measuring an area of 59.17 acre was pursuant to the list of

encroachers furnished by the Director of Settlement and Land

Records, Manipur, which is the authority maintaining the land

records in respect of Government Khas and having found that

Sarkari Khas in C.S. Dag No.31 has been encroached by the

encroachers, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Porompat rightly

issued the impugned conditional order. Thus, exercising

jurisdiction under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. read with Section

15 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960,

the fourth respondent issued the impugned order thereby

directing the encroachers to remove the encroachments/

obstructions caused by the kutcha structures.

33. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,

the impugned conditional order as well as the proceeding being

Eviction Cril. Misc. Case No.1 of 2020 passed by the fourth

respondent is ultra vires the provisions of Section 133 Cr.P.C.

Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 P a g e | 21

and executed without following the procedure provided by

Section 138 Cr.P.C.

34. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that presuming the process for eviction is proceeded

as per Section 15 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land

Reforms Act, 1960, the respondent authorities have to follow

Rule 18 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms

Rules, 1961. But in the instant case, the respondent authorities

never served show cause notice either under the provision of

Cr.P.C., or under the provision of Manipur Land Revenue and

Land Reforms Act, 1960.

35. It is also the submission of the petitioner that the

principles of natural justice has been violated before issuance

of the impugned conditional order and that violation of a rule of

natural justice results in arbitrariness which is the same as

discrimination; where discrimination is the result of the State

action, it is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Therefore, a violation of a principle of natural justice by a State

action is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In

support, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon

number of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Since law is

Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 P a g e | 22

well settled that the principles of natural justice is an integral

part of the guarantee of equality assured by Article 14 of the

Constitution of India, the decisions relied upon by the learned

counsel for the petitioners have not been stated and/or

elaborated further.

36. There is also no quarrel over the proposition of the

Hon'ble Apex Court that violation of a rule of natural justice

results in arbitrariness which is the same as discrimination and

violation of a principle of natural justice by a State action is a

violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

37. In Aligarh Muslim University and others v.

Mansoor Ali Khan, (2000) 7 SCC 529, the Hon'ble Apex Court

held:

"21. As pointed recently in M.C. Mehta v.

Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 237 there can be certain situations in which an order passed in violation of natural justice need not be set aside under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For example where no prejudice is caused to the person concerned, interference under Article 226 is not necessary. Similarly, if the quashing of the order which is in breach of natural justice is

Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 P a g e | 23

likely to result in revival of another order which is in itself illegal as in GaddeVenkateswara Rao v. Govt. of A.P., AIR 1966 SC 828 it is not necessary to quash the order merely because of principles of natural justice."

38. It is always not necessary for Courts to strike down

an order merely because such order has been passed in breach

of natural justice. In cases where the facts are not at all

admitted or beyond dispute, there is considerable unanimity

that the Courts can in exercise of their discretion refuse

certiorari, prohibition, mandamus or injunction even though

natural justice is not followed.

39. Admittedly, the petitioner is rank encroacher of the

land of Government and the petitioner has not produced any

title documents to prove that the land in question belongs to

them. The alleged payment of tax to the Government does not

confer title over the land in favour of the petitioner.

40. On a perusal of the entire materials available on

record, this Court is of the view that the impugned conditional

order was passed strictly in accordance with law, as the

petitioner and its agents were causing nuisance to the public

Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 P a g e | 24

and also causing hindrance to the development work

undertaken up by the Government, more particularly,

construction of public water supply project in the encroached

area. Since the impugned conditional order was passed under

Section 133 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 15 of the Manipur Land

Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, under which an

encroacher/trespasser has to be summarily evicted.

41. It is pertinent to note that in the land in question

i.e. in the encroached area by the petitioner, the respondent

authorities have undertaken development work, more

specifically, construction of Public Water Supply Project and

respondent No.6 is carrying out the construction work after

getting the contract from the Public Health Engineering

Department, Manipur. It is stated and admitted by the petitioner

that they have been removed from the land in question and the

structures were also demolished and after removal of the

encroachment, half of the construction work was over and

pursuant to the interim order of this Court dated 30.4.2021, the

remaining work was stopped.

42. Since the exercise to remove the encroachments

by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Porompat, in C.S. Dag No.31

Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 P a g e | 25

measuring an extent of 59.17 acre was under the direction of

the Director, Settlement and Land Records, this Court finds no

fault either on the respondent State or the Sub-Divisional

Magistrate who had issued the impugned conditional order

dated 28.9.2020.

43. This Court is of the view that the impugned

conditional order was passed strictly according to law, as the

petitioner and its agents/tenants have caused nuisance to the

public by squatting over the land in question. Further, without

having any title over the land in question, the petitioner is

claiming right on it saying that the property is private property.

If really, the land in question is a private property that belongs

to the petitioner, nothing prevented the petitioner from

producing title documents. No document like assignment in

favour of the petitioner has produced in respect of the land in

question. In the absence of any title documents in favour of the

petitioner in respect of the land in question, the petitioner is an

encroacher of the said land, which is a Government Khas. As

such, the fourth respondent has rightly issued the impugned

conditional order for removal of encroachment and this Court

finds no infirmity in the impugned order.

Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 P a g e | 26

44. When the criminal revision petition was taken up

for admission, this Court, by the order dated 30.4.2021, passed

an interim order directing the respondents 2, 5 and 6 to stop the

construction work at the land under C.S. Dag No.31 of 23

Kongkham Leikai till 9.6.2021. It is stated that the said interim

order is still continuing.

45. In view of the conclusion arrived at by this Court in

the earlier paragraphs that there is no infirmity in the impugned

conditional order and the same is sustainable in the eye of law

and half of the construction work for water supply project was

over, it would be appropriate to vacate the said interim order.

46. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the

considered view that no valid ground has been made out to

interfere with the impugned conditional order. That apart, as

held supra, the criminal revision petition suffers from delay and

laches.

47. In the result,

(1) The criminal revision petition is dismissed.

Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 P a g e | 27

(2) The interim order dated 30.4.2021, which

was extended from time to time, stands

vacated.

(3) No costs.

JUDGE

FR/NFR

Sushil

Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021