Manipur High Court
Shri Zeiringkhon Kamei vs Kiungampou Gonmei on 19 September, 2022
LAIREN Digitally
by
signed
Item No. 12
MAYUM LAIRENMAYUM
INDRAJEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
INDRAJ SINGH
Date: AT IMPHAL
EET 2022.09.21
09:42:50
SINGH +05'30' CRP(CRP.Art.227) No. 45 of 2017
1. Shri Zeiringkhon Kamei, Chairman of Keikao/Namkaolung Village
Authority, P.O. & P.S. Tamenglong, District Tamenglong, Manipur.
2. Shri Samuel Pamei, aged about years, S/o Kadailak Pamei, Secretary,
Keikao/Namkaolung Village Authority, P.O. & P.S. Tamenglong,
Tamenglong District, Manipur.
....Petitioners
- Versus -
Kiungampou Gonmei, aged about 36 years, S/o (Late) Hubuanreiyang
Gonmei, Chairman, Sangrung/Khongsang Village authority, Nungba Sub-
Division, Tamenglong District, Manipur.
...Respondent
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR
For the petitioners : Ms. I. Lenibala, Advocate
For the respondent : Mr. N. Ibotombi, Sr. Advocate
Date of Order : 19.09.2022
ORDER
By way of this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution, the respondents in Cril. Revision Case No. 4 of 2014 assail the
judgment and order dated 28.11.2016 passed therein by the learned Sessions
Judge, Imphal West, allowing the said revision.
Heard Ms. I. Lenibala, learned counsel for the petitioners; and
Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondent, viz.,
the petitioner in Cril. Revision Case No. 4 of 2014.
Challenge in Cril. Revision Case No. 4 of 2014 was to the order dated
30.09.1993 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tamenglong, in
Cril. Misc. Case No. 28 of 1993. The said miscellaneous case was filed by the
petitioners herein claiming that they were the Chairman and the Secretary of
Keikao Village Authority respectively and that they represented the villagers
of Keikao Village. According to them, they were enjoying the right of
possession over a particular piece of land but a few months earlier, a dispute
was raised in relation thereto by the villagers of Tingjang Village. While so,
on the application submitted by the Chief of Tingjang Village, the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tamenglong, took up proceedings under Section
145 Cr.P.C. and passed an order in Misc. Case No. 19 of 1991 on 10.11.1992,
directing both parties not to enter into the disputed land and leaving it open
to them to approach a higher competent authority on the question of right
and title. According to the applicants in Cril. Misc. Case No. 28 of 1993, the
Chief of Tingjang Village filed O.S. No. 4 of 1991 before the learned Munsiff's
Court at Tamenglong but the same was dismissed on 10.09.1993. On this
basis, they claimed that the Chief of Tingjang Village had no right or
possession over the disputed land. Accepting their plea, the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Tamenglong, passed the order dated 30.09.1993, recording his
satisfaction therein that there appeared to be no possibility of breach of peace
and public tranquility in relation to the disputed land and exercised power
under Section 145(6) Cr.P.C, holding that the applicants and the villagers of
Keikao Village were entitled to possession of the disputed land unless evicted
therefrom in accordance with law.
Aggrieved by this order, the respondent herein filed Cril. Revision
Case No. 4 of 2014 before the learned Session Judge, Imphal West, under
Sections 397 and 399 Cr.P.C. His main ground therein was that the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, Tamenglong, had not issued any notice or summons to
the parties to dispute before acting upon the application filed before him.
Having satisfied himself on the aspect of delay, the learned Sessions Judge
noted that the case record of Cril. Misc. Case No. 28 of 1993 was not available
as per the letter dated 16.01.2015 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Tamenglong, wherein it was stated that it either untraceable or might have
been destroyed in a fire accident that took place in April, 2006. However, as
a certified copy of the order dated 30.09.1993 was available, the learned
Sessions Judge extracted the same in its entirety in his order. Having minutely
considered the contents thereof, the learned Sessions Judge noted that even
as per the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tamenglong, there was no breach of
peace or tranquility in relation to the disputed land as on the date of passing
of the order, viz., 30.09.1993, and as that is a sine qua non under Section
145 Cr.P.C., the learned Sessions Judge opined that the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate had no occasion to exercise power under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The
learned Sessions Judge also noted that no enquiry was taken up by the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate by involving all the parties concerned before
passing the order. In the result, the learned Sessions Judge concluded that
the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tamenglong, was contrary
to the procedure envisaged under Section 145 Cr.P.C and set it aside. The
revision was therefore allowed, leading to the filing of this revision.
Ms. I. Lenibala, learned counsel, would contend that it was not open
to the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West, to interfere with the order when
the case record pertaining thereto was not available for perusal. However,
she has no answer as to how the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tamenglong,
could have exercised jurisdiction under Section 145 Cr.P.C. when he himself
had recorded in the order that there was no possibility of any breach of peace
or tranquility in relation to the disputed land at that time. Section 145(1)
Cr.P.C makes it clear that it is only when there is a dispute that is likely to
cause breach of peace concerning any land that the Magistrate concerned
would have jurisdiction to pass an order thereunder.
Further, exercise of power under Section 145(6) Cr.P.C. arises only if
the Magistrate decides under the proviso to Section 145(4) Cr.P.C that one
of the parties should be treated as being in possession of the land. The
proviso to Section 145(4) Cr.P.C. states that the Magistrate must satisfy
himself that a party was forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within two
months next before the date on which the report of the police officer or other
information was received by the Magistrate under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C.
Therefore, unless such dispossession takes place, the question of exercising
power under Section 145(6) Cr.P.C would not arise.
In the case on hand, there was no claim of forcible dispossession
from the land at any point of time. It appears that villagers of both the villages
claimed that the land belonged to them. In that context, the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate had noted in the order dated 10.11.1992 passed in Misc. Case No.
19 of 1991 that it was difficult to ascertain who was the actual possessor of
the land and as he was incompetent to decide the question of title, a
preventive order was necessary. He, accordingly, directed both parties not to
enter into the land for a period of 2 months. Therefore, the later order dated
30.09.1993 was not in continuation of the earlier order, which had worked
itself out by efflux of time, and was passed in fresh proceedings. Even if it
was to be treated as being in continuation of the earlier order, the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not put the other parties thereto on notice or
afford them an opportunity of hearing before passing the later order. In fact,
no inquiry was held by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate before passing the order
and he straightaway accepted whatever was stated by the applicants before
him. Significantly, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not even ascertain the
nature of the suit claim in O.S. No. 4 of 1991 on the file of the learned
Munsiff's Court at Tamenglong and proceeded under the assumption that its
dismissal vested the applicants with title. That apart, as already noted
hereinabove, it was never the claim of the applicants that they were
dispossessed. On the other hand, they claimed that they were the rightful
owners and possessors of the land in question. On the above analysis, even
in the absence of the case record, the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West,
was fully justified in setting aside the order dated 30.09.1993 of the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tamenglong, in Cri. Misc. Case No. 28 of 1993.
This revision is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
Indrajeet
