Manipur High Court
Educated Unemployed Youths Committee vs State Of Manipur And 5 Ors on 7 August, 2025
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Suppl. Item no. 3 & 4
Digitally
OINAM signed by
OINAM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
THOIB THOIBA AT IMPHAL
MEITEI
A Date:
2025.08.07
W.P. (C) No. 594 of 2025 with
MEITEI 16:55:35
+05'30'
MC(W.P. (C)) No. 558 of 2025
Educated Unemployed Youths Committee
... Petitioner
- Versus -
State of Manipur and 5 Ors.
... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
ORDER
07.08.2025
[1] Heard Mr. N. Jotendro, learned sr. counsel assisted by Mr. A. Manikanta
Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned A.G.
assisted by Mr. A. Bheigya, learned jr. G.A. for the State respondents.
[2] The petitioner approached this Court with the direction that Deputy
Commissioner, Imphal East and his subordinate officers be prevented from
evicting the petitioner from the piece of land/shop site plots measuring an area
of 242 ft. x 13 ft. (0.072 acre) out of 0.218 acre covered by C.S. Dag No. 4435
of Village No. 38 (A) Palace Compound, recorded in the name of the Secretary,
Educated Unemployed Youth's Committee, Palace compound, Imphal East
District which falls within the Stretch mentioned at Sl. No. 9 "Konung Mamang
Traffic Island Via Andro Parking to Ningthem Pukhri" of the Eviction Schedule
submitted by the SDO, Porompat to the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East
District, Manipur as the said land is a private property as mentioned in the
Manipur Merger Agreement, 1949 and also affirmed by the Judgment and Order
dated 20.2.1995 passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench in Civil
Rule No. 44 of 1984 and also there is a Revenue Revision Case being Revenue
Revision Case No. 34 of 2025 pending before the Ld. Revenue Tribunal, Manipur
at Imphal, as they are the owner of the present land in terms of the gift deed
executed by the legal heir of the late Maharajah of Manipur.
[3] At this stage, the learned AG submits that the process of demarcation is
going on to find out how much land is encroached upon the Govt. land and no
eviction drive is carried out at present without verifying the area encroached in
Govt. land.
[4] It is submitted that the writ petition is premature, as there is no specific
order to the petitioner for eviction and demolition in the land occupied by them
and the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to approach when the
need arises.
[5] The learned sr. counsel for the petitioner submits that writ petition may
be disposed of with the observations that the petitioner shall not be evicted and
no structure be demolished from their own land.
[6] In the ongoing demarcation proceeding, the learned sr. counsel for the
petitioner undertakes that the petitioner shall cooperate with the authority in the
demarcation proceeding, if any notice is issued to them.
[7] With these observations, the present W.P. (C) No. 594 of 2025 with
MC(W.P. (C)) No. 558 of 2025 are disposed of. Petitioner's possession and
structures within their own land are protected.
[8] Furnish a copy of this order to the learned counsel appearing for the
parties in the course of the day through whatsapp or email.
JUDGE
Thoiba
