Manipur High Court
Shri H. Aleng vs The Union Of India on 10 January, 2023
SHAMURAILATPAM Digitally signed by
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA
SUSHIL SHARMA Date: 2023.01.10 16:00:18 +05'30'
Page |1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No.623 of 2022
Shri H. Aleng, aged about 65 years, S/o Late H.
Wungnaoshang, Headman, Langthungching Village,
Kangchup Geljag Sub-Division, Kangpokpi District,
Manipur & another
...Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The Union of India, represented by the Secretary,
Tribal Affairs, Ministry of Tribal Affairs,
Government of India, Shastri Bhavan, A-Wing, Dr.
Rajendra Prasad Road, N Delhi-110 001
2. The State of Manipur represented by the Chief
Secretary, Government of Manipur, Manipur
Secretariat, Babupara, Imphal West, Manipur-
795001
3. The Additional Chief Secretary (Forest),
Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat,
Babupara, Imphal West, Manipur-795001
4. The Additional Chief Secretary (TA & Hills),
Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat,
Babupara, Imphal West, Manipur-795001
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
Page |2
5. The Principal Chief Conservation of Forest,
Government of Manipur, Sanjenthong, Imphal
East, P.O & P.S Porompat, Manipur-795001
6. The Divisional Forest Officer, Central Forest
Division, Mantripukhri, Imphal East, Manipur-
795003
7. The Deputy Commissioner, Kangpokpi District
/Chairperson, District Level Committee,
Kangpokpi District, Manipur-795129
...Respondents
WP(C) No.624 of 2022
Shri Jangpou Dangmei, aged about 65 years, S/o
Late Ganbongchung Dangmei, Chairman of
Ramgailong Village, Kangchup Geljang Sub-Division,
Kangpokpi District, Manipur.
...Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The Union of India, represented by the Secretary,
Tribal Affairs, Ministry of Tribal Affairs,
Government of India, Shastri Bhavan, A-Wing,
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, N Delhi-110 001
2. The State of Manipur represented by the Chief
Secretary, Government of Manipur, Manipur
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
Page |3
Secretariat, Babupara, Imphal West, Manipur-
795001
3. The Additional Chief Secretary (Forest),
Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat,
Babupara, Imphal West, Manipur-795001
4. The Additional Chief Secretary (TA & Hills),
Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat,
Babupara, Imphal West, Manipur-795001
5. The Principal Chief Conservation of Forest,
Government of Manipur, Sanjenthong, Imphal
East, P.O & P.S Porompat, Manipur-795001
6. The Divisional Forest Officer, Central Forest
Division, Mantripukhri, Imphal East, Manipur-
795003
7. The Deputy Commissioner, Kangpokpi District
/Chairperson, District Level Committee,
Kangpokpi District, Manipur-795129
...Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioners
In both writ petitions :: Mr. Phungyo Zingkhei, Adv.
For the Respondents Nos.
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
Page |4
2 to 7 in both writ petitions :: Mr. Lenin Hijam, AG
Mr. Dimalkumar, Adv.
in both writ petitions :: Mr. Vijayanand Sharma,
Sr.PCCG
Date of Hearing and
reserving Judgment & Order :: 04.11.2022
Date of Judgment & Order :: 10.01.2023
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
W.P.(C) No.623 of 2022 has been filed by the
petitioners for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the
seventh respondent/Deputy Commissioner/Chairperson,
District Level Committee, Kangpokpi District to consider and
dispose of the claim forwarded by the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Kangpokpi District vide letter dated 5.1.2021 and to consider
and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated
22.9.2021.
2. W.P.(C) No.624 of 2022 has been filed by the
petitioner for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the
seventh respondent/Deputy Commissioner/Chairperson,
District Level Committee, Kangpokpi District to consider and
dispose of the claim made by the petitioner's villagers and to
direct the respondents to consider and dispose of the
representation dated 22.9.2021.
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
Page |5
3. Since the relief sought and the point for
consideration in the writ petitions is similar, both the writ
petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this
common order.
4. The first petitioner in W.P.(C) No.623 of 2022 is
stated to be a Headman of Lanthungching Village, Kangchup
Geljang Sub-Division, Kangpokpi District, Manipur and
according to him, he inherited the post of Headman from his
father Late H. Wungnaoshang, who is the founder of the village
and the first Headman. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.624 of
2022 is stated to be a Chairman of Ramgailong Village,
Kangchup Geljang Sub-Division, Kangpokpi District, Manipur
and Rangailong Village was established by his father and being
the founder of the village he become the first Khullakpa.
5. Brief facts are as follows:
Lanthungching Village and Ramgailong Village
were registered with C. Phailen and hill house tax was paid in
the name of C. Phailen vide order dated 8.2.1988. Schedule
boundary of C.Phailen including Lanthungching and
Rangailong villages were demarcated by the Assistant
Settlement Officer (Forest) in Objection Case No.9 of 1990.
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
Page |6
Accordingly, the schedule boundary land of Langthungching
and Rangailong were demarcated in Hill Misc. Case
No.2/SDC/KCP of 1992 and Hill Misc. Case No.3/SDC/KCP of
1992 dated 19.8.1992. After conducting election to the Village
Authority, both villages became a full-fledged hill house tax
paying villages under KangchupGeljang Sub-Division,
Kangpokpi District, Manipur recorded in Touzi Book of Record
as Village Nos.93 and 129 respectively maintained by the
competent authority.
5.1. The villagers are Scheduled Tribe forest dwellers,
who depend on the forest land for bona fide livelihood needs
and they did their cultivation in the existing Langol Housing
Complex area and above the hill for livelihood. The village
history reveal that the two villages are now more than 50 years
old andthe villagers in the two villages have also participated in
the election to 51-Saitu Assembly Constituency and are
enjoying NREGS, IAY, Ration Card under NFSA. Anganwadi
Centre, Community Hall and Government Primary School have
also been constructed under Kangpokpi.
5.2. Since the petitioners are all forest dwelling
Scheduled Tribals, they primarily reside in the village of forest
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
Page |7
area and they comes under the provisions of the Schedule Tribe
and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest
Right) Act, 2006 [for short, "the Act of 2006"] and the Scheduled
Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of
Forest Rights), Rules, 2008 (for short, "the Rules of 2008").
Thus, the villagers have forest right as laid down in Section 4(1)
of the Act of 2006.
5.3. Before the enactment of the Act of 2006, the
question of conferring titleship to the villagers was started by
the Government of Manipur to issue patta for the villagers. In
this connection, the Conservator of Forest, vide letter dated
16.7.1975, addressed to the Secretary (Forest) requested to
allow the settlement and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Hills,
West Kangpokpi addressed a letter dated 25.7.1980 to the
Chief Conservator of Forest requesting for issuance of no
objection certificate to allow the settlement and, by another
letter dated 22.2.1986, the Under Secretary, Government of
Manipur written to the Chief Conservator of Forest requested
for grant of patta and not to evict them, as they are living for
nearly 20 years. The Under Secretary (Forest), Government of
Manipur, vide letter dated 16.4.1990, addressed to the Principal
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
Page |8
Chief Conservator of Forest requested for demarcation of C.
Phailen village.
5.4. In the follow up action, the Assistant Conservator
of Forest, by the letter dated 30.5.2000 written to the Range
Officer, Sadar West regarding demarcation between the Langol
Reserve Forest and Langol Ramgailong and Langthungching
Villages and requested to cause a detailed enquiry and submit
a report. On 13.2.2006, the Sub-Deputy Collector
(Headquarters), Kangpokpi, Sadar Hill had submitted hill house
tax in respect of Langthungching and Ramgailong villages to
the District Forest Officer, Central Forest Division, Government
of Manipur. On 11.8.2010, the Deputy Secretary (Forest &
Environment), Government of Manipur addressed a
communication to the Chief Conservator of Forest requesting
for necessary verification to issue allotment order by excluding
from the purview of plan of eviction. While so, the Forest
Department, from time to time, issued eviction notices to the
villagers to vacate from the encroached land in the Langol
Reserve Forest.
5.5. Challenging the eviction notices, the father of the
first petitioner in W.P.(C) No.623 of 2022 and the other villagers
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
Page |9
have filed writ petitions before the Guwahati High Court and
while disposing of the writ petitions, the Guwahati High Court
directed the respondents therein not to evict the petitioners from
their village. On 25.7.2022, the Divisional Forest Officer,
Central Forest Division, Manipur had issued a show cause
notice of eviction to the second petitioner in W.P.(C) No.623 of
2022.
5.6. The Government of India, Ministry of Environment,
Forest & Climate Change made sincere efforts to recognize the
traditional right of the tribal population on the forest land. The
Inspector General of Forest, Government of India addressed a
communication to all the Chief Secretary of the State and Union
Territories for regularization of the rights of the tribal on the
forest land and stepping up of process for conversion of forest
villages into revenue villages and also requested not to resort
to eviction of forest dwellers, including tribal other than ineligible
encroachers of forest land till complete survey is done for
identification of such people and their traditional rights on forest
land.
5.7. In pursuance of the letter dated 9.5.2019 of the
Additional Chief Secretary (TA & Hills), the Deputy
Commissioner, Kangpokpi, vide letter dated 17.5.2019,
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
P a g e | 10
intimated the Additional Chief Secretary (TA & Hills),
Government of Manipur that the process for determining of
forest right claim in respect of Lanthungching and Ramgailong
Villages have been initiated by forming Forest Right
Committees. On 29.8.2019, the Deputy Commissioner
submitted details of claims of the two villages to the Additional
Chief Secretary (TA & Hills).
5.8. While joint verification process was going on, the
Divisional Forest Officer has sent a communication dated
22.7.2019 to the Chairman, Langthungching Village Authority
and requested to submit copies of (i) recognition of Village
Authority by the Government; (ii) Village Authority/Grama
Sabha meeting resolution constituting Forest Right Committee
with lit of attendance; (iii) Copies of claims in prescribed format
with all required documents. After completion of the joint
verification, a final report was prepared, which was approved by
the Grama Sabha and forwarded to the Chairperson, Sub-
Divisional Level Committee and on 11.2.2020, the Sub-
Divisional Level Committee convened a meeting and approved
67 claims in respect of Rangailong village and 91 claim in
respect of Langthungching village. The Minutes of Meeting of
Sub-Divisional Level Committee along with 158 claim forms,
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
P a g e | 11
consolidated report, resolution passed by the respective Grama
Sabha, proceedings of the joint verification team were
forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, Kangpokpi District.
However, the Deputy Commissioner did not convene the
meeting of the District Level Committee to consider the
resolution and findings submitted by the Sub-Divisional Level
Committee. The petitioners have also submitted reminders on
22.9.2021 requesting again to convene meeting of the District
Level Committee so as to consider the claim of the villagers as
per the rules. Despite the petitioners personally approached
the Deputy Commissioner, no action has been taken till date.
5.9. According to the petitioners, in similarly situated
case, being W.P.(C) No.457 of 2022, the petitioners claimed
status of the Act of 2006 and the said writ petition was disposed
of by this Court on 27.6.2022 directing the respondents to
consider the representation of the petitioner within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
Therefore, the petitioners seek similar relief and direction on the
respondents not to initiate any eviction process until their claim
is considered and settled. Hence, these writ petitions.
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
P a g e | 12
6. In W.P.(C) No.623 of 2022, the first
respondent/Union of India filed affidavit-in-opposition stating
that the petitioners have not sought any relief against the first
respondent and the representation dated 22.9.2021 was
addressed to the State respondent and the show cause notice
dated 25.7.2022 has not been issued by the first respondent.
As per the Act of 2006 and the rules made thereunder, the
administrations of the State Governments/UTs are responsible
for implementation of various provisions of the Act. It is stated
that Section 6 of the Act of 2006 lays down the authorities and
procedure for vesting of forest rights. Grama Sabha shall
receive and verify the claims through the Forest Rights
Committee and after passing a resolution forward the same to
the Sub-Divisional Level Committee and the District Level
Committee to consider and finally approve the records of forest
rights prepared by the Sub-Divisional Level Committee. No
petition shall be preferred directly to the District Level
Committee against the resolution of the Grama Sabha. Section
6(7) of the Act of 2006 empowers the State Government to
constitute a State Level Monitoring Committee to monitor the
process of recognition and vesting of forests rights and to
submit to the nodal agency such reports and returns as may be
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
P a g e | 13
called for by the agency. Since there is no prayer made against
the first respondent, the first respondent prayed for dismissal of
the writ petition.
7. Respondents 3, 5 and 6 filed affidavit-in-
opposition stating that some of the officials, without their
jurisdiction, had tried to include Langol Reserved Forest under
Senapati District while recognising villages illegally and on
8.2.1988, the Deputy Commissioner of Senapati District
recognized a group of encroachers at Laithungching area of
Langol Reserved Forest as C. Phailen without jurisdiction. C.
Phailen village as described by the boundary schedule is
located inside the boundaries of Langol Reserved Forest and
also C. Phailen village was made by encroachment in Langol
Reserved Forest and the Deputy Commissioner of Senapati
had not taken any approval from the Central Government.
Laithungching and Ramgailong were part of the then C. Phailen
village immediately before the recognition of C. Phailen by the
Deputy Commissioner, Senapati was cancelled and made null
and void by the Revenue Department in the year 2000. The
boundary schedule as reflected in the order of recognition of the
then C. Phailen village covers the area presently occupied by
Lanthungching and Ramgailong villages. Lanthungching and
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
P a g e | 14
Ramgailong were constituted by encroachers within the Langol
Reserved Forest and these localities fall within the jurisdiction
of the present Imphal West District. This is due to the fact that
Langol Hill range or the Langol Reserved Forest was
transferred to the Imphal (Central) District in the year 1984. The
Act of 2006 was not enacted for regularization of encroahcers,
but to recognize and vests forest rights to those forest dwelling
Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers to whom
historical injustices were mated out due to declaration of a
Reserved Forest or Protected Forest etc. in their ancestral land.
7.1. It is stated that the petitioners are not primary
residents in Langol Reserved Forest land and the petitioners
and other villagers are encroachers as identified by the
Committee. No settlements were present in the area where
Lanthungching and Ramgailong stand at present. The
petitioners and their villagers have encroached upon Langol
Reserved Forest land much later after the declaration of Langol
Hill Range as Reserved Forest. Langol Hill Range has never
been included in the District Map of the then Senapati District
or the present Kangpokpi District. The petitioners/encroachers
while trying to manipulate the Government records in their
favour went to pay hill house tax and the officials have also
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
P a g e | 15
accepted to receive in connivance not considering the fact that
Langol Hill Range is within the boundary of Imphal (Central)
District during that time. Langol Reserved Forest area presently
occupied by the villagers of Lanthungching and Ramgailong are
not within the jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner, Kangpokpi,
as Langol Hill Range was transferred to the erstwhile Imphal
Central District (now Imphal West) in the year 1984. The Forest
Rights Committee formed in respect of Ramgailong and
Lanthungching cannot be valid, as they are formed by a group
of encroachers and the Village Authorities, which are not
recognized by competent authorities.
7.2. It is stated that the District headquarters of Imphal
West is barely at an aerial distance of 2 km from the area
occupied by Lanthungching and Ramgailong. However, the
District headquarters of Kangpokpi District is about 45 km from
Langol Reserved Forest. Again, Langol Reserved Forest falls
under the jurisdiction of Divisional Forest Officer, Central Forest
Division and, as such, all matters relating to recognition and
vesting of forest rights under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 in
respect of Langol Reserved Forest is being taken care of by the
Central Forest Division, Government of Manipur. The
submission of relevant documents to the Sub-Divisional Level
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
P a g e | 16
Committee made by the Grama Sabha after verification in the
field by Forest Rights Committee is as per the provisions of Rule
11(5) of the Forest Rights Rules, 2007. However, the members
of Grama Sabha or the Forest Rights Committee are all
encroachers within Longol Reserved Forest and not primary
residents at the time of declaration of Langol Hill Range into a
Reserved Forest. The petitioners have came from elsewhere
and have resided in the area because of its proximity to Imphal
City. There are huge numbers of encroachments in Longol
Reserved Forest today and the number is increasing gradually.
New constructions in the name and religion such as Churches
have also been constructed. This is against the direction of the
Apex Court in its order dated 29.9.2009 passed in SLP No.8519
of 2006. During Covid-19 times, two new Churches were
constructed in Ramgailong village. Since Reserved Forest are
public properties, construction of Churches in Ramgailong
village is against the decision of the Apex Court. Hence, prayed
for dismissal of the writ petition.
8. Mr. Phungyo Zingkhei, learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that the petitioners and other villagers are
Scheduled Tribe forest dwellers, who depend on the forest land
for their livelihood and they primarily resides in the village of
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
P a g e | 17
forest area as defined under Section 2(c), 2(p), 3 1(a) of the Act
of 2006 and Rule 2(1)(b) of the Rules of 20008. Even before
enactment of the Act of 2006, the question of conferring title to
the villagers was started by the Government of Manipur to issue
patta for the villagers of Lanthungching and Ramgailong
villages.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit
that when the Forest Department issued eviction notices to the
villagers to vacate them from the encroached land in Langol
Reserve Forest, the first petitioner's father and other villagers
have filed writ petitions before the Guwahati High Court and
those writ petitions were disposed of by directing the official
respondents not to evict the villagers from the encroached area.
The Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change,
Government of India has also made an efforts to recognize the
traditional right of the tribal population on the forest land and by
letter dated 3.2.2004 requested all the Chief Secretary of the
States/UTs to draw up a time bound programme for converting
forest villages into revenue villages so as to enable the people
living in the villages can enjoy the fruits of development. In fact,
on 7.11.2005, the Inspector General of Forest requested the
Chief Secretary/Administrator of all the States/UTs not to resort
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
P a g e | 18
to evict forest dwellers, including tribals other than ineligible
encroachers of forest land till complete survey of
identification/verification of such people is done and their
traditional rights on forest land.
10. Drawing the attention of this Court to the decision
of the Apex Court in the case of Wild Life First and others v.
Union of India and other, W.P.(C) No.109 of 2008, decided on
28.2.2019, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the Apex Court ordered to put on hold the eviction of forest
dwellers till all details which are to be provided by the State
Governments in terms of category wise are furnished. Pursuant
to the order of the Apex Court, on 9.5.2019, the Additional Chief
Secretary (TA & Hills), Government of Manipur sent a letter to
the Deputy Commissioner, Kangpokpi/Imphal West/Imphal
East Districts to initiate the process of verification claim through
Grama Sabha for determining the nature and the extent of
individual and community forest rights of Forest Dwelling
Schedule Tribe and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers by
receiving claims and preparing map delineating the area of each
recommended claim and the same was directed to completed
so as to enable them to an affidavit before the Apex Court.
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
P a g e | 19
11. The learned counsel further submitted that in
compliance of the letter dated 9.5.2019, the Deputy
Commissioner, Kangpokpi intimated to the Additional Chief
Secretary (TA & Hills) that process for determining of forest right
claim in respect of Lanthungching and Ramgailong villages
have been initiated by forming Forest Right Committees. On
26.8.2019, the petitioners have submitted an information
regarding the progress of the Forest Right Claim of the villagers
to the Deputy Commissioner, Kangpokpi and, on 29.8.2019, the
Deputy Commissioner, Kangpokpi had also submitted details of
the claims made by the two villages to the Additional Chief
Secretary (TA & Hills).
12. The learned counsel next submitted that while the
process for joint verification was going on, in contradiction to the
provisions of the Act of 2006 and the Rules framed thereunder,
on 22.7.2019, the Divisional Forest Officer, Central Forest
Division addressed a communication to the Chairman of
Langthungching Village Authority requesting to submit certain
documents. However, the petitioners have sent a reply to the
Divisional Forest Officer stating that the joint verification
process was going on satisfactorily and as soon as verification
is completed, the Grama Sabha will submit the final report with
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
P a g e | 20
required documents. On 16.12.2019, the process of joint
verification of forest right claim was completed and after
completion of joint verification, the Forest Right Committee
prepared a final report which was approved by the then Grama
Sabha and forwarded the same to the Chairperson, Sub-
Divisional Level Committee altogether 158 claims along with
final verification report, consolidation claim report, maps,
resolution passed by the Grama Sabha and proceedings of the
Inspection team.
13. The learned counsel then submitted that on
11.12.2020, the Sub-Divisional Level Committee convened a
meeting and approved 91 claims in respect of Langthungching
village and 67 claims in respect of Ramgailong village and the
Minutes of Meeting of the Sub-Divisional Level Committee
along with other documents were forwarded to the Deputy
Commissioner, Kangpokpi as per Rule 6(j) of the Rules of 2008
on 5.1.2021 by the Sub-Divisional Level Committee. However,
the Deputy Commissioner, Kangpokpi has not convened any
meeting of the District Level Committee to consider the
resolution and the findings of the Sub- Divisional Level
Committee and the same is pending for the past 2 years. In this
regard, on 22.9.2021, the petitioners requested the Deputy
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
P a g e | 21
Commissioner of Kangpokpi to convene the meeting so as to
consider the claim of the villagers as per the rules.The
petitioners are also personally appeared before the Deputy
Commissioner and requested to convene District Level
Committee meeting. Despite the receipt of the petitioners'
written request dated 22.9.2021, no action has been taken till
date. Thus, a prayer has been made to direct the Deputy
Commissioner/Chairperson, District Level Committee,
Kangpokpi to consider and dispose of the claims forwarded by
the Sub Divisional Officer, Kangpokpi dated 5.1.2021 and also
direction on the respondents to consider and dispose of the
representation of the petitioners dated 22.9.2021.
14. Refuting the submissions made by learned
counsel for the petitioners, the learned Advocate-General
appearing for the respondent State, inter alia, submitted that
Langthungching and Ramgailong villages as described by the
boundary schedule is located inside the boundariesof Langol
Reserved Forest and that C.Phailen village was made by
encroachment in Longol Reserved Forest and the forest area
claimed by the petitioners is within Langol Reserved Forest and
also Langol Reserved Forest is within the jurisdiction of Imphal
West District since 1984. In fact, the recognition of C. Phailen
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
P a g e | 22
village by the then Deputy Commissioner, Senapati as a village
within Langol Reserved Forest was cancelled by the
Government of Manipur in the year 2000 and that the villages
in the name of Lanthungching and Ramgailong recognized
again by the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati in the year 2003
within the same boundary of erstwhile C. Phailenvillage is
without jurisdiction and in fact, he has no authority as per the
provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 to recognize the two
villages which are within the boundary of Langol Reserved
Forest and has failed to consider that the area was already
transferred to the erstwhile Imphal Central District.
15. Mr. Lenin Hijam, the learned Advocate-General
further submitted that as Lanthungching and Ramgailing fall
within the boundary of Langol Reserved Forest which is also
proved by the fact that the petitioners have applied for forest
rights under the Forest Rights Act, they should have made the
said submissions to the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West
District. The District headquarters of Imphal West is barely at
an aerial distance of 2 km from the area occupied by
Langthunchign and Ramgailong. However, the District
headquarters of Kangpokpi District is about 45 km from Langol
Reserved Forest and since Langol Reserved Forest falls under
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
P a g e | 23
the jurisdiction of Divisional Forest Officer, Central Forest
Division, all matters relating to the recognition and vesting of
forest rights under the Forest Rights Act in respect of Langol
Reserved Forest is being taken care of by Central Forest
Division, Government of Manipur.
16. The learned Advocate-General urged that the
members of the Grama Sabha or the Forest Rights Committee
are all encroachers within the Langol Reserved Forest and not
the primary residents at the time declaration of Langol Hill
Range into a Reserved Forest. According to the learned
Advocate-General none of the petitioners were present in
Lgangol Reserved Forest area where they called
Lanthungching and Ramgailong during the time of declaration
of the Reserved Forest in the year 1938.
17. Drawing the attention of this Court to the order
dated 24.9.2011 passed in Writ Appeal No.25(K)/2010 (Naga
United/Invi Village and others v. The State of Nagaland and
others), the learned Advocate-General submitted that in the
said order, the Kohima Bench of Guwahati High Court gave
Statement of Objects and Reasons for enacting the Forest
Dwellers Act and that the statute was enacted to do away with
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
P a g e | 24
the historical injustice subjected to the different forest dwelling
Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers by the
State Government in manners such as not recognizing the
ancestral rights of the forest dwellers over forest land during the
time of notification of forest area into a Reserved Forest,
Protected Forest, National Park, Sanctuary or alike. After such
notifications, the forest dwellers both from the Scheduled
Tribes community and Traditional Forest Dwellers continued to
possess their ancestral forest land. However, they are
subjected to evictions or their peaceful possession are often
disturbed under the existing laws such as the Indian Forest Act,
1927 and the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
18. The learned Advocate-General then submitted
that for a claim of forest right to be made under the Act, an
individual/community need to be (i) belonging to a Schedule
Tribe/Tribe Community as listed by the State Government; (ii)
should have primarily resided in the forest area and (iii) should
be dependent on the forest or forest land for bona fide livelihood
needs. Since the petitioners and their villagers are not primary
residents in Langol Reserved Forest and they are encroachers,
they are not entitled the forest rights under the Act of 2006.
Thus, a prayer has been made to dismiss the writ petitions.
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
P a g e | 25
19. This Court also heard the submission of the
learned Central Government Standing Counsel, who submitted
that since the petitioners have not prayed any relief against the
Union of India and primarily the relief sought in these writ
petitions is against the respondent State/Forest Department,
the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
20. This Court considered the rival submissions and
also perused the materials available on record.
21. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are
Scheduled Tribe Forest Dwellers and are settled for more than
50 years within Langol Reserved Forest and their rights are also
recognised and vest under the Act of 2006. The claim of the
petitioners was already approved by the Sub-Divisional Level
Committee in its meeting held on 11.12.2020 and forwarded to
the Deputy Commissioner/Chairperson, District Level
Committee, Kangpokpi on 5.1.2021. However, the same has
not been considered by the Deputy Commissioner of
Kakgpokpi. While so, the authorities of the respondent State
are trying to evict them from the forest land by issuing show
cause notice. It is also the grievance of the petitioners that in
similar situation when the Divisional Forest Officer, Thoubal
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
P a g e | 26
Forest Division, Manipur issued show cause notices for
eviction, the same has been challenged in W.P.(C) No.457 of
2022 and this Court by the order dated 27.6.2022 entertained
the writ petition and directed the respondents therein to
consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioners
therein within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order and pending consideration of the representation, this
Court directed the respondents therein not to initiate any
eviction process against the petitioners and other similarly
situated persons numbering 441 without the leave of the Court.
Highlighting the aforesaid order dated 27.6.2022, the petitioners
prayed for a direction on the respondent State to consider the
representation of the petitioners and dispose of the same.
22. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent
State that Langol Reserved Forest has been in existence since
1938 and at the time of declaring Langol Hills as Reserved
Forest, Manipur was an independent princely sovereign State.
In spite of Langol Reserved Forest being in the middle or central
portion of the valley, which is more appropriately included in
Imphal (Central District) was taken to be a part of the then
Senapati District while some officials were trying to recognize
the localities constituted by encroachers within Langol
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
P a g e | 27
Reserved Forest and the first of such kind of recognition of
village being C.Phailen village whose recognition was
eventually cancelled by the competent authorities of the
Government of Manipur on the ground of illegality. The Langol
Reserved Forest or Langol Hill Range has never been
mentioned to be a part of the erstwhile Senapati District. In the
year 1988, the then Deputy Commissioner of Senapati District
recognized a group of encroachers at the Lanthungching and
Ramgailong of Langol Reserved Forest as C.Phailen without
jurisdiction. The Deputy Commissioner, Senapati did not have
jurisdiction on two grounds, namely Lanthungching and
Ramgailong were outside the jurisdiction of Senapati District as
Langol Hill Range was within Imphal District (now Imphal West)
District and secondly, the forest land recognized as C.Phailen
during the time was within Lgngol Reserved Forest protected
under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Forest Conservation Act,
1980.
23. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional
Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 was
enacted by the Parliament in the year 2006 and came into force
on 31.12.2007 and the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
P a g e | 28
Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights), Rules, 2007
made thereunder came into force on 1.1.2008.
24. Section 4(5) of the Act of 2006 provides - Save as
otherwise provided, no member of a forest dwelling Scheduled
Tribe or other Traditional Forest Dweller shall be evicted or
removed from forest land under his occupation till the
recognition and verification procedure is complete. Section 6 of
the Act lays down the authorities and procedure for vesting of
forest rights. As per the said provision, Grama Sabha shall
receive, consolidate and verify the claims through the Forest
Rights Committee and after passing a resolution forward the
same to Sub Divisional Level Committee, which should
examine the resolution passed by the Grama Sabha and
prepare the record of Forest Rights and the same should be
considered and approved by the District Level Committee.
Section 6(7) empowers the State Government to constitute a
State Level Committee to monitor the process of recognition
and vesting of forest rights and to submit to the nodal agency,
which is the authority authorised by the Central Government.
25. The recognition of Lanthungching and
Ramgailong villages of Langol Reserved Forest as C.Phailen
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
P a g e | 29
and the jurisdiction in which those areas lie are disputed by the
respondent State. The respondent State contended that the
boundary schedule as reflected in the order of recognition of the
then C.Phailen village covers the area presently occupied by
the so called Lanthungching and Ramgailong villages. On the
other hand, the petitioners submit that Langthungching and
Ramgailong villages are a full-fledged hill house tax pay villages
under Kangchup Geljang Sub Division, Kangpokpi District and
the villagers of the said two villages are Scheduled Tribe Forest
Dwellers who depend on the forest land for bona fide livelihood
and they primarily resides in the said villages of forest area. The
records reveal that almost all the tribal villages nearby Langol
Reserved Forest namely Pantilong, Nagaching, Aenon, Tharon,
Tarung, Guigailong, Ramgailong, Lanthungching and Khundi
(Lainingkhun) villages were established since the ancient days
and were also recognised by the British and they have been
paying hill house tax to the State Government for the use of land
forest under Hill Areas (Hill House Tax) Act, 1966.
26. The respondents contended that the petitioners
and their villagers are encroachers and the petitioners or their
forefathers were not residing in the area when Langol Reserved
Forest came into force in the year 1938. No settlement were
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
P a g e | 30
present in the area where Langthungching and Ramgailong
villages stand at present. The respondents also contended that
the members of Grama Sabha or the Forest Rights Committee
are all encroachers within Langol Reserved Forest and not
primary residents at the time of declaration of Langol Hill Range
into a Reserved Forest.
27. Whether the petitioners and their villagers are
eligible to occupy the forest land in question and whether they
are encroachers of the forest land are to be decided by the
respondent authorities as per the revenue documents. The
respondent State contended that the Deputy Commissioner,
Senapati has not obtained any approval from the Central
Government before recognising a group of encroachments in C.
Phailen. The aforesaid point cannot be decided by this Court
exercising writ jurisdiction.
28. As could be seen from the records, earlier when
the villagers of Langthungching and Rangailong approached
the Guwahati High Court by way of writ petitions, the Guwahati
High Court directed not to evict the petitioners therein from the
land. In one of the writ petitions, being W.P.(C) No.847 of 2004,
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
P a g e | 31
decided on 29.11.2004, the Guwahati High Court ordered as
under:
"Petitioners claim that they have been
residing in their village C. Phailen @
Laimanai for the last more than 30 years
and they have also been paying hill house
tax regularly. However, the petitioners'
apprehension is that the respondents are
likely to evict them as the respondents have
done in respect of neighbouring village.
I have perused the documents and
considered the matter. There is still dispute
about the question if the village of the
petitioners' lies within the Langol Reserve
Forest area or not. In this connection, the
petitioners are to approach the appropriate
competent authority for adjudications of the
dispute. It has also been brought to my
notice that this court also made a direction
in that regard in Civil Rule No.1292/94 on
10.3.2000.
Having regard to all the relevant
consideration, this writ petition is disposed
of with the direction that the petitioners are
not be evicted from their village without due
process of law.
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
P a g e | 32
In the facts and circumstances of the case,
the petitioners are also directed to approach
the concerned competent authority for
settlement of the said dispute mentioned
above within a reasonable time."
29. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the
petitioners are seeking direction on the seventh
respondent/Deputy Commissioner to consider and dispose of
the claims forwarded by the Sub-Divisional Level Committee.
The respondents disputed the very convening of the meeting by
the Sub-Divisional Level Committee and its onward submission
of the claims to the Deputy Commissioner/Chairperson, District
Level Committee, Kangpokpi. It is the case of the respondents
that the Grama Sabha and the Forest Rights Committee were
formed by a group of encroachers and that the Sub-Divisional
Level Committee, without following proper procedure such as
collating and reconciliation of Government records, have
proposed forest rights to all the individual claimants flatly and
that there has not been application of mind to sort the eligible
and ineligibles.
30. The primary contention of the respondent State is
that the petitioners and their fellow villagers are not the original
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
P a g e | 33
settlers in Langol Reserved Forest area and, as such, they do
not belong to the category of the Forest Dwelling Scheduled
Tribes, which is mandatory requirement to be eligible to avail
forest rights under the Forest Rights Act, 2006.
31. This Court is of the view that it is for the concerned
authority to decide whether the petitioners and their villagers
belong to the category of the Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribes
and are eligible to avail forest rights and the Court cannot
decide the same exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
32. One of the conditions for exercising power under
Article 226 for issuance of a mandamus is that the Court must
come to the conclusion that the aggrieved person has a legal
right, which entitles him to any of the rights and that such right
has been infringed. In order to obtain a writ or order in the
nature of mandamus, the petitioner has to satisfy that he has a
legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the party against
whom the mandamus is sought and such right must be
subsisting on the date of the petition.
33. Writ of mandamus cannot be issued merely for the
sake of asking. One must establish the right first and then he
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
P a g e | 34
must seek for the prayer to enforce the said right. Since the
rights of the petitioners in the forest land in question is in
dispute, the mandamus as sought for by the petitioners cannot
be granted. As stated supra, it is for the respondent authorities
to consider the claim of the petitioners as per law.
34. Since disputed questions are involved in these writ
petitions, exercising writ jurisdiction, such disputed questions
cannot be decided. Though the petitioners pray for a direction
on the Deputy Commissioner/Chairperson, District Level
Committee, Kangpokpi to consider and dispose of the claims
forwarded by the Sub-Divisional Level Committee, Kangpokpi,
the same cannot be considered and/or granted by this Court in
these writ petitions for the reason that the right of the petitioners
in occupying the forest land in question has been disputed by
the respondent State. As stated supra, it is for the respondent
authorities to decide and act in accordance with law and the
Court cannot interfere in it.
35. All privileges and rights to be recognized and
vested under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 shall be only in favour
of Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribes and not the encroachers.
Moreover, the claim of the villagers are to be considered by the
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
P a g e | 35
authorities in accordance with law and the High Court cannot
issue any positive direction to consider the claim of the
petitioners/villagers of the two villages in question.
36. The learned Advocate-General also contended
that settlement of rights under the Act of 2006 if allowed to be
taken up to identify, eligible and ineligible claimants, should be
taken up by the Sub- Divisional Committee headed by the Sub
Divisional Officer, Lamphel and the District Level Committee,
Imphal West District, as the whole of Langol Reserved Forest
was transferred to the Imphal (Central) District in the year 1984.
Admittedly, the aforesaid submission has not been disputed by
the petitioners.
37. Apart from the argument aforesaid, the learned
Advocate-General has also raised the following queries in these
matters:
(a) How can two small points in the middle of
large expanded agricultural fields and
settlement areas of Imphal West District
be a part of Kangpokpi District.
(b) How can a group of encroachers as
confirmed by the Committee of Officers
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
P a g e | 36
form the Forest Rights Committee under
the Act of 2006 as the same shall be
illegal.
(c) How will the Sub-Divisional Level
Committee and the District Legal
Committee of Kangpokpi implement the
Forest Rights Act, 2006 in an area which
is under the territorial jurisdiction of
Imphal West District.
38. According to the learned Advocate-General, the
initiation of determining the forest rights at Lanthungching and
Ramgailong shall not be tenable on the ground that Langol
Reserved Forest area presently occupied by the aforesaid two
villages are not within the jurisdiction of the Deputy
Commissioner, Kangpokpi, as Langol Hill Range was
transferred to the erstwhile Imphal Central District (now Imphal
West). Again, the Forest Rights Committee formed in respect
of Lanthungching and Ramgailong cannot be valid, as they are
formed by a group of encroachers and the Village Authorities of
these two villages and the same has not been recognized by
the competent authorities. The said arguments of the learned
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
P a g e | 37
Advocate-General has not been controverted by the petitioners.
Moreover, such dispute cannot be decided in the present writ
petitions, which are filed for issuance of a mandamus to direct
the seventh respondent/Deputy Commissioner to consider and
dispose of the claim of the petitioners/villagers in a time bound
manner. Anyhow, as stated supra, it is for the concerned
authority of the respondent State to decide the aforesaid
questions of fact.
39. It is well settled that normally the High Court does
not adjudicate highly disputed questions of fact in proceedings
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In these writ
petitions, this Court had not proceeded to adjudicate such highly
disputed questions of facts involved.
40. It is trite that the High Court is not deprived of its
jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India merely because in considering the
petitioner's right to relief questions of fact may fall to be
determined. In a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues
both of fact and law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true,
discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
P a g e | 38
judicial principles. When a writ petition raises questions of fact
of a complex nature, which may for their determination require
oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court
is of the view that the dispute may not appropriately be tried in
a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a writ petition.
Rejection of a writ petition will normally be justified, where the
High Court is of the view that the petition is frivolous or because
of the nature of the claim made, dispute sought to be agitated,
or that the petition against the party against whom relief is
claimed is not maintainable or that the dispute raised thereby is
such that it would be inappropriate to try it in the writ jurisdiction
or for analogous reasons.
41. The order dated 27.6.2022 passed in W.P.(C)
No.457 of 2022 relied upon by the petitioners in support of their
case is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the
instant writ petitions. On a perusal of the order, it is seen that
the learned Advocate-General, during the course of arguments,
submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of by issuing
innocuous direction to the concerned authorities of the
Government to consider the representation dated 16.6.2022
submitted by the petitioners and dispose of the same by issuing
speaking order within a period of two months and pending
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
P a g e | 39
consideration of the representation, no eviction process will be
initiated against the petitioners. Here, in the instant writ
petitions, the learned Advocate-General strongly opposes the
prayer made by the petitioners. As stated supra, since disputed
questions of fact involved in the present writ petitions, a
direction on the respondent authorities to consider the
representations of the petitioners dated 22.9.2021 cannot be
granted.
42. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view
that there is no merit in the writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ
petitions are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Sushil
WP(C) No. 623 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 624 of 2022
