Manipur High Court
Ningtoulung Raimei vs State Of Manipur & 9 Ors on 29 April, 2025
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Item No. 135
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 1014 of 2022
Ningtoulung Raimei
.....Petitioner/s
- Versus -
State of Manipur & 9 Ors.
.... Respondent/s
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
Order
29.04.2025
[1] Heard Mr. D. Julius Riamei, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mrs. Ch. Sundari, learned G.A. for respondent Nos. 1 & 2
and Mr. Serto T Kom, learned counsel for private respondent Nos. 3 to
11.
[2] The petitioner approached this Court for quashing of
orders and certificates issued by the State Authorities. The prayer is
reproduced as:
"(i) Pass an order or direction by issuing a writ of
Certiorari or a writ in the nature of a writ of
Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or
direction as this Hon'ble Court may deemed fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case
to quash and set aside the (i) order dated
21.08.1990 passed by the Additional Deputy
Commissioner, Kangpokpi, (ii) the land ownership
certificate dated 08.1.2007 and issued by Sub-
Deputy Collector, SAitu Gamphazol, (iii) the land
ownership certificate dated 27.11.2008 issued by
the Additional Deputy Commissioner Kangpokpi
and (iv) order dated 07.12.2011 passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, Senapati; or
(ii) Direct the respondent No. 1 to consider and
dispose of the representations dated 30.09.2022
within certain time framed."
[3] It is stated that the petitioner has already submitted
representations dated 30.09.2022 and 10.10.2022 to the Addl. Chief
Secretary (TA & Hills), Government of Manipur for cancelling
certificates/orders as mentioned in prayer No. (i) of the writ petition. It is
submitted at the bar that representations are still pending with the State
Authority.
[4] Respondents have also filed counter affidavit.
[5] Mr. D. Julius Riamei, learned counsel for the petitioner,
submits that the writ petition may be disposed of at this stage by
issuing an innocuous order to the State respondent to consider and
pass a speaking order to the pending representations submitted by the
petitioner.
[6] Mrs. Ch. Sundari, learned G.A., submits that the issue
raised in the present writ petition has already been settled in the earlier
judgment dated 29.07.2022 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in
WA No. 12 of 2022, etc.
[7] On the other hand, Mr. Serto T Kom, learned counsel for
the private respondents, submits that he has no objection in disposing
the writ petition by issuing an innocuous order to the State respondent
to consider the pending representations submitted by the petitioner.
However, the private respondents may be permitted to file objection to
the pending representations before the State Authority. It is also stated
that the judgment in the subject matter of the writ appeal being WA No.
12 of 2022 and the issue involved in the present writ petition are
different.
[8] This Court has perused the materials on record and
considered the limited prayer of the petitioner made at the bar.
[9] Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of by directing
respondent No. 1 to consider the pending representations dated
30.09.2022 and 10.10.2022 submitted by the petitioner within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
[10] Private respondents are also permitted to raise objection
to the representations of the petitioner before respondent No. 1 within a
period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
[11] It is made clear that this Court does not express any
opinion on the merit of the case.
[12] With this observation, writ petition is disposed of.
JUDGE
Kh. Joshua Maring
KH. JOSHUA KH. JOSHUA MARING
MARING Date: 2025.04.30
12:56:18 +05'30'
