Manipur High Court
Shri Sarangthem Ibopishak Singh vs Shri Sarangthem Ramchoron Singh on 4 May, 2023
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL
SHARMA Page |1
SHARMA Date: 2023.05.04 13:53:01 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 388 of 2023
1. Shri Sarangthem Ibopishak Singh, aged about 75
years, S/o (L) S Ningthemton Singh, a resident of
Singjamei Chingamakha Heirangoithong
Aheibarn/Jaganatha Achouba Leirak, P.O. and P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
2. Shri Sarangthem Basanta Singh, aged about 45 years,
S/o, Sarangthem Iboton Singh of Singjamei
Chingamakha Heirangoithong, Imphal West, Manipur.
3. Shri Sarangthem Keiremba Singh, aged about 34 years,
S/o (L) S Bheigya Singh, a resident of Singjamei
Chingamakha Heirangoithong Aheibam/Jaganatha
Achouba Leirak, P.O. and P.S. Singjamei, Imphal! West
District, Manipur.
...Petitioners
-Versus-
1. Shri Sarangthem Ramchoron Singh, aged about 68
years, S/o (L) S Pishak Singh, a resident of Singjamei
Chingamakha Chanam Pukhri Mapal, P.O. & P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
2. Shri Sarangthem Tikendrajit Meitei, aged about 48
years, S/o (L) S Lalji Meitei, a resident of Singjamei
Chingamakha Chanam Pukhri Mapal, P.O. & P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
WP(C) No. 388 of 2023
Page |2
3. Shri Sarangthem Dhiren Singh, aged about 57 years,
S/o. S.Pishak Singh, a resident of Singjamei
Chingamakha Chanam Pukhri Mapal, P.O. & P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
4. Shri Sarangthem Ranjan Singh, aged about 53 years,
S/o (L) S Lalji Meitei, a resident of Singjamei
Chingamakha Chanam Pukhri Mapal, P.O. & P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
5. Shri Sarangthem Dorendro Singh, aged about 51 years,
S/o (L) S Lalji Meitei, a resident of Singjamei
Chingamakha Chanam Pukhri Mapal, P.O. & P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
6. Shri Sarangthem Jiten Singh, aged about 43 years,
S/o (L) S Lalji Meitei, a resident of Singjamei
Chingamakha Chanam Pukhri Mapal, P.O. & P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
.. Respondents
7. Shri Sarangthem Hemanta Singh, aged about 47 years,
S/o, Sarangthem Iboton Singh of Singjamei
Chingamakha Aheibam/Jaganatha Achouba Leirak,
Imphal West, Manipur.
8. Shri Sarangthem Sushil Singh, aged about 42 years,
S/o (L) S Bheigya Singh, a resident of Singjamei
Chingamakha Heirangoithong Aheibam/Jaganatha
Achouba Leirak, P.O. and P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West
District, Manipur.
..Proforma Respondents.
WP(C) No. 388 of 2023
Page |3
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioners :: Mr. N. Ibotombi, Sr. Adv.,
For the Respondents :: Mr. Th. James, Adv.
Date of Hearing and
reserving Judgment & Order :: 27.04.2023
Date of Judgment & Order :: 04.05.2023
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
Heard Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel for
the petitioners and Mr.Th. James Singh, learned counsel for the
respondents 1 and 2.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners
challenging the order dated 10.4.2023 passed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Lamphel, Imphal West in Eviction Case No.38
of 2019 in connection with the Demarcation Case
No.99/SDC/IW(C) of 2016 and to direct the respondents to
conduct a fresh demarcation.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners
and the proforma respondents are absolute owners of the
homestead lands, namely (a) land covered in C.S. Dag No.586
having an area of 0.04890 acre by the third respondent and the
second proforma respondent; (b) land covered in C.S. Dag
No.590 having an area of 0.0363 acre by the first petitioner and
WP(C) No. 388 of 2023
Page |4
(c) land covered in C.S. Dag No.589 having an area of 0.0353
acre by the second petitioner and the proforma first respondent.
According to the petitioners, a demarcation was took place on
20.6.2017 based on the map survey year, 1960. When a
Memorandum dated 29.9.2017 was issued by the SDO, Imphal
West (Central), an objection was made by the first petitioner and
the second proforma respondent on 16.10.2017 against the said
Memorandum dated 29.9.2017 stating that physical demarcation
must be based on the survey year 1990, but the demarcation was
done based on the survey year 1960 and also some distance
were not properly measured and, therefore, a fresh physical
demarcation on the basis of survey year 1990 is to be conducted.
However, final peg was given in the absence of the petitioners
and on 17.10.2019, an eviction notice was issued. According to
the petitioners, final peg lies six feet inside the land of the
petitioners and the same affects the dwelling house of the first
petitioner. Without doing the physical demarcation properly, the
final eviction order was passed on 10.4.2023 by the SDO, Imphal
West in Eviction Case No.38 of 2019. Challenging the same, the
petitioners have filed the present writ petition.
4. Assailing the impugned order dated 10.4.2023
passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Lamphel, Imphal West in
Eviction Case No.38 of 2019, the learned counsel for the
WP(C) No. 388 of 2023
Page |5
petitioners submitted that the SDO has passed the impugned
order for eviction without following due process of law thereby
depriving the life and personal liberty of the Constitution of India,
as no prior notice was served on the petitioners before passing
the impugned eviction order.
5. The learned senior counsel further submitted that a
bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the said order
was passed not only without following the due process of law, but
also without doing correct demarcation. No copy of the order has
been served to the would be evicted parties which is evidence
from the order dated 10.4.2023. He would submit that the natural
justice demands that it would be the affected parties be at least
given advance notice of eviction to be carried out. Aggrieved by
order dated 10.4.2023, the petitioners have submitted an
application dated 21.4.2023 to the SDC, Imphal West (Central)
for conducting fresh re-demarcation with reference to
Demarcation Case No.99/SDC/LW(C) of 2016. The petitioners
have also filed CRP No.26 of 2023 and the same was
subsequently withdrawn with liberty to file afresh petition.
6. Before going to consider the merits of the impugned
order dated 10.4.2023, let us first consider the maintainability of
the writ petition challenging the order dated 10.4.2023 passed in
WP(C) No. 388 of 2023
Page |6
Eviction Case No.38 of 2019, which has been filed by the
respondents 1 and 2 herein for settlement of boundary by
evicting the land holders who are in wrongful possession of the
homestead land covered by C.S. Dag No.132 and 133 (old)
situated at Revenue Village No.99, Ningthoujam Leikai/IWT.
7. On a perusal of the impugned order dated
10.4.2023, it is seen that the Eviction Case No.38 of 2019 has
been filed against the petitioners herein and others. Further
perusal of the impugned order reveals that vide order dated
16.1.2023, the SDO ordered eviction of the respondents therein,
particularly the petitioners 1 and 3 herein from the suit land
covered in C.S.Dag No.132 and 1333 (old) situated at Revenue
Village No.99, Ningthoujam Leikai/KWT in accordance with the
final pegs given on 26.6.2019 in Demarcation Case
No.99/SDC/IT(C) of 2016 to be executed by the Sub-Deputy
Collector, Imphal West (Central) by 9.30 A.M. of 30th January,
2023. The impugned order further records that the petitioners
herein have filed Revenue Revision Case No.9 of 2023 before
the Revenue Tribunal and initially, the Revenue Tribunal stayed
the order dated 16.1.2023. The said interim order was vacated
by the order dated 17.2.2023 and disposed of the Revenue Case
No.9 of 2023 as infructuous. Observing so, the SDO directed the
Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal West (Central) to execute the
WP(C) No. 388 of 2023
Page |7
eviction order dated 16.1.2023 by evicting the petitioners,
particularly the petitioners 1 and 3 herein from the suit land of the
respondents 1 and 2 herein on 29.4.2023 at 9.30 A.M. The
Officer-in-Charge, Singjamei PS was also directed to provide
adequate security for the eviction.
8. Admittedly, the eviction proceedings initiated by the
respondents 1 and 2 against the petitioners and others in respect
of the land in C.S. Dag No.132 and 133 (old) situated at Revenue
Village No.99, Ningthoujam Leikai/IWT, is a private lis and in the
private lis initiated by the respondents 1 and 2 before the SDO,
Lamphel, the said authority after considering the respective
cases put forth by the parties, ordered eviction of the petitioners
herein from the suit land. When the petitioners challenge the
eviction order passed by the SDO, Lamphel, they ought to have
arrayed the SDO as party respondent in the writ petition. The
fact remains that the SDO, Lamphel has not been arrayed as
respondent in the instant writ petition. Behind the back of the
SDO whose order is under challenge, no direction can be
passed.
9. As could be seen, aggrieved by the order dated
16.1.2023 passed by the SDO earlier the petitioners have
approached the Revenue Tribunal, Manipur. Now assailing the
WP(C) No. 388 of 2023
Page |8
impugned order of the SDO, the petitioners have invoked the
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India the correctness of the order of the SDO, Lamphel cannot
be decided. Article 226 of the Constitution of India gives High
Courts the ability to issue instructions, orders, and writs to any
person or authority, including the Government.
10. As stated supra, without the authority who had
passed the order having been arrayed as a party respondent in
the writ petition, the High Court cannot decide the correctness of
the impugned order. Since as against the impugned order
passed by the SDO, a revision would lie, as filed earlier by the
petitioners, the petitioners cannot challenge the impugned order
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India that too without
impleading the authority who had passed the impugned order.
11. As could be seen, the petitioners have earlier filed
CRP (CRP Art.227) No.26 of 2023 before this Court and
subsequently, by the order dated 21.4.2023, the CRP No.26 of
2023 has been withdrawn by the petitioners with liberty to file a
fresh one, if so advised, which does not mean that they have right
to challenge the impugned order under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India when the order under challenge has been
WP(C) No. 388 of 2023
Page |9
passed by the SDO directing the Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal
West (Central) to execute the eviction order dated 16.1.2023.
Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioners assailing the
order dated 10.4.2023 straightway invoking the jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution that too without impleading the
authority who had passed the impugned order is not
maintainable.
12. Coming to the merits of the impugned order, the
same was passed after the dismissal of the Revenue Revision
Case No.9 of 2023 which was preferred against the order dated
16.1.2023 passed by the SDO, Lamphel in Eviction Case No.38
of 2019. If really, the petitioners are aggrieved by the order
passed by the Revenue Tribunal in Revenue Revision Case No.9
of 2023, they ought to have assailed the same in the manner
known to law. However, the petitioners have failed to do so.
Having failed to do so, now the petitioners cannot assail the
impugned order by way of this writ petition. That apart,
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, this Court cannot test the correctness of the impugned
order dated 10.4.2023. Moreover, the petitioners have failed to
convince this Court to entertain the writ petition.
13. For all the reasons stated above,
WP(C) No. 388 of 2023
P a g e | 10
a) the writ petition is dismissed as not
maintainable.
b) The Registry is hereby directed strictly that if
the litigant has not impleaded the State
authorities as party Respondent, the Registry
should not number the writ petition.
c) There will be no order as to costs.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
Sushil
WP(C) No. 388 of 2023
