Manipur High Court
Unknown vs The State Of Manipur Through The ... on 29 May, 2025
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Non-reportable
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020
1. Shri Mayengbam Dhoni Singh, aged about 56 years old, S/o M.
Amusana Singh, a resident of Sanjenthong Awang Leikai, P.O.
Imphal & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795001.
2. Shri Waikhom Tombi Singh, aged about 50 years old, S/o
Waikhom Kesho Singh, a resident of Sanjenthong Awang
Leikai, P.O. Imphal & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District,
Manipur-795001.
3. Shri Abujam Nelson, aged about 43 years old, S/o Abujam
Lairenjao Singh a resident of Sanjenthong Awang Leikai, P.O.
Imphal & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795001.
4. Smt. A. Surodhoni Devi, aged about 60 years old, a resident of
Sanjenthong Awang Leikai, P.O. Imphal & P.S. Porompat,
Imphal East District, Manipur-795001.
5. Shri S. Raju Singh, aged about 55 years old, S/o Abujam
Lairenjao Singh, a resident of Sanjenthong Awang Leikai, P.O.
Imphal & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795001.
6. Smt. Mikhu Kabui @ Mikhu Kamei, aged about 61 years old,
S/o Laibakmacha, a resident of Sanjenthong Awang Leikai,
P.O. Imphal & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-
795001.
7. Shri Maring Ningthoujao, aged about 50 years old, S/o
Maringjao, a resident of Sanjenthong Awang Leikai, P.O. Imphal
& P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795001.
8. Shri Chingakham Angouton aged about 55 years old, S/o
Chingakham Khouton, a resident of Sanjenthong Awang Leikai,
P.O. Imphal & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-
795001.
9. Shri Mairubam Lukhoi Singh, aged about 65 years old, a
resident of Sanjenthong Awang Leikai, P.O. Imphal & P.S.
Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795001.
10. Smt. Maibam Sanahanbi, aged about 56 years old, W/o M.
Rajmohan Singh, a resident of Sanjenthong Awang Leikai, P.O.
Imphal & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795001.
11. Smt. Moirangthem Thoibi Devi, aged about 70 years old, W/o
M. Bidhu Singh, a resident of Sanjenthong Awang Leikai, P.O.
Imphal & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795001.
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 with
WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 123 of 2025 Page 1
12. Lien Gangte, aged about 46 years old, S/o Tonglam Gangte, a
resident of Sanjenthong Awang Leikai, P.O. Imphal & P.S.
Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795001.
13. Shri Nongmaithem Bungocha, aged about 41 years old, S/o (L)
N. Babathem Singh, a resident of Sanjenthong Awang Leikai,
P.O. Imphal & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-
795001.
14. Sagolshem Bulu Singh, aged about 47 years old, S/o (L) S.
Shridham Singh, a resident of Sanjenthong Awang Leikai, P.O.
Imphal & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795001.
15. Sagolshem Pujaa, aged about 35 years old, D/o (L) Shridham
Singh, a resident of Sanjenthong Awang Leikai, P.O. Imphal &
P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795001.
16. Lishram Premananda Singh, aged about 53 years old, S/o (L)
L. Ibochou Singh, a resident of Sanjenthong Awang Leikai, P.O.
Imphal & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795001.
17. K. Maringbilu, aged about 60 years old, w/o Brojen Singh, a
resident of Sanjenthong Awang Leikai, P.O. Imphal & P.S.
Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795001.
18. Laithangbam Brajakumar Singh, aged about 29 years old, S/o
Laithangbam Bijoy Singh, a resident of Sanjenthong Awang
Leikai, P.O. Imphal & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District,
Manipur-795001.
...... Petitioner/s
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur through the Commissioner (Revenue),
Govt. of Manipur, Old Secretariat South Block, P.O. & P.S.
Imphal, Manipur PIN No. 795001.
2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Porompat, P.O. & P.S. Porompat,
Imphal East District, Manipur-795005.
......Official Respondent/s
With
WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 123 of 2025
1. Khuprengthang Kom aged about 50 S/o Ibohal Kom of
Sanjenthong P.O. & P.S. Porompat Imphal East, Manipur-
795005.
2. Leishangthem Sanajaoba Meitei aged about 70 years S/o (L)
L. Chimni Meitei of Sanjenthong Awang Leikai P.O. & P.S.
Porompat Imphal East, Manipur 795005.
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 with
WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 123 of 2025 Page 2
3. Sagolsem Debaraj Singh aged about 40 years S/o Sagolsem
Shridam Singh of Sanjenthong Awang Leikai P.O. & P.S.
Porompat Imphal East, Manipur 795005.
4. Mani Gonmei aged about 70 years S/o (L) Pantiphun of
Namthanpung Sangenthong P.O. & P.S. Porompat Imphal
East, Manipur 795005.
5. Chao Gangmei aged about 50 years S/o (L) L. Yaima of
Namthanpung Sanjenthong P.O. & P.S. Porompat Imphal
East, Manipur 795005.
6. Mansi Panmei aged about 44 years S/o Gaikhangjaipou of
Namthanpung Sanjenthong P.O. & P.S. Porompat Imphal
East, Manipur 795005.
7. Deborah Pamei aged about 55 years S/o Makuhan Thaimei
of Namthanpung Sanjenthong P.O. & P.S. Porompat Imphal
East, Manipur 795005.
8. P.G. Lambi Chung aged about 84 years S/o (L) Bonulsing of
Namthanpung Sanjenthong P.O. & P.S. Porompat Imphal
East, Manipur 795005.
9. Md. Abdul Hassan aged about 55 years S/o Abdul Manaf of
Namthanpung Sanjenthong P.O. & P.S. Porompat Imphal
East, Manipur 795005.
10. Namkon Kamei aged about 63 years S/o Kabuichungpou of
Namthanpung Sanjenthong P.O. & P.S. Porompat Imphal
East, Manipur 795005.
11. Md. Tolen Khan aged about 65 years S/o (L) Md. Niyaz Ali of
Namthanpung Sanjenthong P.O. & P.S. Porompat Imphal
East, Manipur 795005.
12. Md. Taj Khan aged about 58 years S/o Md. Tomba of
Namthanpung Sanjenthong P.O. & P.S. Porompat Imphal
East, Manipur-795005.
13. Abdul Hashim aged about 65 years S/o (L) Md. Nasserudin
of Namthanpung Sanjenthong P.O. & P.S. Porompat Imphal
East, Manipur 795005.
14. Ismail Khan aged about 35 years S/o (L) Md. Abdul Kasim of
Dimdailong, P.O. & P.S. Porompat Imphal East, Manipur
795005.
15. Rojita Gangmei aged about 48 years W/o Dr. H. Angam of
Dimdailong, P.O. & P.S. Porompat Imphal East, Manipur
795005.
16. Lamaru Golmei aged about 66 years S/o (L) Janglung
Phaomei of Dimdailong, P.O. & P.S. Porompat Imphal East,
Manipur 795005.
17. Johnson Kamei aged about 36 years S/o Taithalung Kamei
of Dimdailong, P.O. & P.S. Porompat Imphal East, Manipur
795005.
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 with
WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 123 of 2025 Page 3
18. Sanahanbi Panmei aged about 47 years W/o Poupangai
Panmei of Dimdailong, P.O. & P.S. Porompat Imphal East,
Manipur 795005.
19. Sahidur Rahman aged about 58 years S/o (L) Md.
Rahimuddin of Dimdailong, P.O. & P.S. Porompat Imphal
East, Manipur 795005.
20. K. Kaijingailu Kamei aged about 51 years D/o K. Kumar
Kamei of Dimdailong, P.O. & P.S. Porompat Imphal East,
Manipur 795005.
21. Sheikh Rubaiya aged about 34 years W/o Md. Ajad
Namthanpung Sanjenthong, P.O. & P.S. Porompat Imphal
East, Manipur 795005.
...........Petitioner/s
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur represented by the
Secretary/Commissioner, Land Resources Department,
Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat Complex,
Babupara, Imphal-795001, Manipur.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East, Porompat, Imphal East
District, Manipur-795005, Manipur.
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Porompat, Imphal East, D.C. Imphal
East Office Complex, Porompat, Imphal East-795005, Manipur.
...... Respondent/s
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the Petitioner/s :: Mrs. G. Pushpa, Adv. & Mrs. Th.
Babita, Adv.
For the respondent/s :: Mr. Lenin Hijam, AG assisted by Ms.
Sharmila, Adv.
Date of hearing :: 13.03.2025
Date of Order :: 29.05.2025
ORDER (CAV)
[1] Heard Mrs. G. Pushpa, learned counsel and Mrs. Th. Babita,
learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned A.G.
assisted by Ms. Sharmila, learned counsel on behalf of the State respondents.
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 with
WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 123 of 2025 Page 4
[2] In WP(C) No. 673 of 2020: The petitioners who are 18 in
numbers approached this Court by way of the present writ petition being
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 challenging the impugned notification dated
07.12.2020 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Porompat, Imphal East in
Eviction Case No. 16 of 2020/SDO/P/IE under the Manipur Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1978. In the impugned notification,
it is stated that the petitioners and 20 households are alleged to be illegal
encroachers occupying over the the eastern bank of Imphal River from
Sanjenthong to Minuthong by constructing dwelling houses. The petitioners
and others were directed to vacate the premises by 16.12.2020.
[3] It is the case of the petitioners that after occupying the above
land for the last more than 40 years, they are entitled for allotment of the land
under their occupation in terms of the State Cabinet decision taken on
24.10.1992. It is also stated that they have submitted a representation dated
11.12.2020 to Local MLA-cum-Minister MAHUD, Social Welfare &
Cooperation, Government of Manipur with copy endorsed to the
Commissioner (Revenue), Government of Manipur and SDO, Porompat,
Imphal East, Manipur.
[4] The petitioners have been occupying their homestead lands
under Village No. 26(A) Nongpok Ingkhol, Imphal West, Manipur for the last
more than 40 years without break and it is stated that they are entitled to get
allotment in view of the decision of the State Cabinet taken on 24.10.1992.
Some of the petitioners have also recorded their names in the Jamabandi
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 with
WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 123 of 2025 Page 5
pattas and also in the relevant revenue Dag Chitha after paying land revenue
from time to time.
[5] Along with the writ petition, the petitioners have enclosed the
land revenue record showing their possessions over the said land. The
possessions of the petitioners can also be seen from the electoral roll of 15-
Wangkhei Assembly Constituency where the names of the petitioners are
shown in the voter lists published on 16.11.2020. The petitioners have also
annexed some of the receipts of the land revenue receipt to substantiate that
they are in possessions of the land and they are regularly paying taxes. The
petitioners have also electric connection in their names and their names can
be seen from the electoral roll.
[6] After receiving of the impugned eviction notice dated 07.12.2020,
the petitioners jointly make a representation dated 11.12.2020 to the Local
MLA cum Minister requesting to review the order dated 07.12.2020 passed in
Eviction Case No. 16 of 2020 by the SDO, Porompat, Imphal East, Manipur.
[7] In the representation to the Local MLA cum Minister for MAHUD,
Social Welfare & Cooperation, Government of Manipur, it is stated that the
petitioners have been staying there for more than 40 years by constructing
their dwelling houses and they have no alternative place of dwelling and their
names are included in the voter lists for 15-Wangkhei Assembly Constituency
for many years and issuing eviction notice dated 07.12.2020 suddenly for
vacating by 16.12.2020 without prior notice will cause hardship to them. The
dwelling houses of the petitioner have not obstructed, 33 ft. breadth inter-
village road from Sanjenthong to Namthanpung. It is stated that the
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 with
WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 123 of 2025 Page 6
construction made by the petitioners does not obstruct the road, rather it
protects the river bank of the Imphal River by such structures. It is requested
to review the matter considering the Covid-19 pandemic on humanitarian
ground, as it will be very difficult to get rent at the short notice also.
[8] It is also stated that the impugned eviction notice dated
07.12.2020 is liable to be quashed, as the same was issued without giving
any opportunity to the petitioners in violation of the principle of natural justice.
It is further stated that as per Section 3 of the Manipur Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1978, the competent authority has
to issue the eviction order after making due enquiry and in the present case,
no such enquiry was conducted before issuing the impugned eviction notice
dated 07.12.2020. Since the petitioners are staying for the last 40 years by
paying taxes from time to time and have entered their names in the
Jamabandi, they are entitled to get allotment in their favour, as done in the
case of Lamshang Assembly Constituency.
[9] Vide order dated 16.12.2020, this Court issued notice to the
respondents to consider the long possession of the petitioners over the land
in question for the last about 40 years and entering of their names in the
relevant revenue record. As an interim measure, this Court directed the
respondents not to evict the petitioners from the land under their possession
till next date. The interim order has been extended from time to time.
[10] By way of additional affidavit dated 15.12.2020, the petitioners
placed on record two documents i.e. the order dated 11.06.2001 passed by
the Gauhati High Court (Imphal Bench) in WP(C) No. 924 of 2001 holding that
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 with
WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 123 of 2025 Page 7
Sub-Divisional Magistrate is not the competent authority to issue eviction
notice under Section 3 of Manipur Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1978 and the same can be issued by the Deputy
Commissioner/Addl. Deputy Commissioner/SDO/Assistant Commissioners/
Special Officer (Eviction) within their respective jurisdiction. Second document
is the allotment application submitted by some of the petitioners.
[11] Two of the petitioners submitted an application to the competent
authority for allotment of land on 28.03.2012 in terms of the State Cabinet
decisions on 24.10.1992 and circulated on 28.10.1992 and the same are still
pending before the authority.
[12] In view of the affidavit-in-opposition i.e. counter affidavit dated
17.03.2021 filed by the State respondents, the State respondents denied the
allegation made in the writ petition. It is stated that the pattas and Dag Chitha
annexed to the writ petition are false and fabricated and there are no records
of any encroachers in the Dag No. 5803 and 5804 in the relevant land records
maintained by the Office of the Directorate of Settlement and Land Records,
Manipur. Further, the signatures of the officers and staff in the said pattas and
Dag Chittha are false and fabricated. It is also stated that there are no records
of issuance of Dag Chittha and pattas by the concerned officials of the said
Dags in the year 2017 to 2020. It is also stated that the petitioners are
misleading the Court thereby co-relating the decision taken by the State
Cabinet on 24.10.1992 with the present case, as no decision has been taken
and as such, decision might be taken for some specific circumstances and not
general rule for allotment in all cases.
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 with
WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 123 of 2025 Page 8
[13] The plea of the respondents is that the claim of the petitioners
for possession over the land in dispute over 40 years, is without any evidence.
Recording of the names in Aadhaar or electricity connection or voter card does
not mean that such persons are permanent residents of the said place and
entering names in the Aadhaar or electricity connection or voter card can be
done easily by those who are staying in rent also. It is also stated that the
SDO, Porompat has initiated the process of eviction after minutely verifying all
the materials available on record and after receiving due instructions from the
higher authority as well as by following proper procedure and the allegation of
issuing eviction notice without due proper procedure is without any basis.
[14] It is also stated that proper notice was served to the petitioners
and this can be known from the fact that they made representation against the
eviction order. It is further stated that the main reason for eviction by the State
Government is to initiate Smart City Project for the betterment of the public
and the petitioners who are encroachers over the public land, are required to
be evicted for the said purpose. Dag No. 5803 and 5804 are recorded as river
bank (road) and road site in the relevant land records in the year 1960 and
allotment of land to the Lamshang Assembly Constituency has no similarity
and cannot be related to the present case. It is also stated that assuming the
possession of the petitioners is for more than 40 years, the matter has to be
ventilated in a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and not in a Constitutional
Court. It is prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed.
[15] The State respondents have also filed affidavit-in-opposition
dated 17.03.2021 to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioners stating that
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 with
WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 123 of 2025 Page 9
the order dated 11.06.2001 passed in WP(C) No. 924 of 2001 is not applicable
in the present case, as the impugned eviction notice dated 07.12.2020 was
issued by SDO, Porompat after following the procedure laid down in Section
3 of Manipur Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1978
and denied rest of the averments.
[16] The petitioners filed rejoinder affidavit dated 20.06.2024 denying
the plea of the State respondents that the revenue documents submitted by
the petitioners are fake and fabricated. Annexure-A/1(series) to the writ
petition is self-explanatory as to whether the petitioners have been occupying
over the land in dispute over 40 years. The petitioners also denied the plea of
the State respondents that Aadhaar Cards or electricity connection or voter
cards can easily be obtained by any person who is staying in rent. It is also
stated that the eviction process, without going through official records only in
the year 2020, is hit by the Principles of Adverse possession and hence, the
same is untenable. It is also stated that the government has discriminated
against the petitioners, as some of the VIPs such as Ministers and MLAs have
been given allotment orders and only the poor like the petitioners have been
targeted for eviction. It is also stated that if the government requires the land
for initiation of Smart City Project, the same can be done following due process
of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
[17] In WP(C) No. 127 of 2025: The petitioners who are 21 in
numbers challenged the impugned order dated 10.02.2025 issued by the
SDO, Porompat, Imphal West, Manipur under Section 3 of the Manipur Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1978 in connection with
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 with
WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 123 of 2025 Page 10
Eviction Case No. 2 of 2025/SDO(P)/IE whereby directing 22 persons
(including 21 petitioners herein) for vacating and to remove structures upon it
by 5.00 pm of 16.02.2025, failing which eviction will be carried out on any day
without further notice.
[18] It is the case of the petitioners that the stretch of land on eastern
bank of Imphal River stretching from Sanjenthong to Minuthong were all State
Khas lands. These portions of the State land have been under the habitation
of many communities such as Meiteis, Meitei Pangals, Kabui, Tangkhul, Kom,
Kukis, etc. for the last 40 years. The stretch of land including inhabited by the
petitioners are known as Mama Ingkhol Galapati, K.R. Lane, New Lambulane,
Dimdailong, Namthanpung, Mission Lane and Sanjenthong Meitei Leikai. It is
stated that the names of the petitioners are recorded or entered in the Dag
Chithas where the land is recorded as State land and the petitioners' names
are recorded in the remark column as occupiers of the State land. Some of
the petitioners have also recorded their names as owners of the land. It is
stated that the petitioners are occupying over the land shown in the sketch
map for the last 40 years and the petitioners have already applied for allotment
of land under their possession to the competent authority.
[19] Vide letter dated 03.07.2015, the Directorate of Settlement of
Land Records (DSLR) to the Secretary (Revenue), Government of Manipur
forwarded 19 applications submitted by the petitioners herein for allotment of
land under their occupation and it was submitted for processing. In the letter
dated 03.07.2015, the possessions of the petitioners are indicated in the
schedule of land along with Dag No., Area in acre, classification and khas
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 with
WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 123 of 2025 Page 11
land. It is stated that no objection certificate has been issued by the local
councillor. The application for allotment is pending with the authority.
[20] It is stated that the impugned order dated 10.02.2025 issued by
the SDO, Porompat, Imphal East directing 22 residents (including 21
petitioners herein) was issued ex-parte without any notice. The 22 persons
sought to be evicted were not impleaded as party in Eviction Case No. 2 of
2025 and no notice was served upon them before issuing the impugned order
dated 10.02.2025 in violation of due process of law. It is stated that it is liable
to be quashed. Another ground is that some of the children of the petitioners
are also appearing in the ensuing Class 10 and Class 12 examination and it
is prayed that eviction order dated 10.02.2025 be stayed during the pendency
of the present petition.
[21] This matter was taken up in a special bench on 16.02.2025 and
as undertaken by the Ld. A.G. that till next date of hearing, the petitioners
would not be evicted and recording the submissions made at the bar, this
matter was directed to be listed along with WP(C) No. 673 of 2020. The interim
order in WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 and the undertaking of the learned AG (later
on, status quo) in WP(C) No. 127 of 2025, have been extended from time to
time till the pronouncement of the order.
[22] In WP(C) No. 673 of 2020, this Court passed an order dated
13.02.2025 recording the submission of Ld. A.G. that the interim order dated
16.12.2020 staying the eviction of the petitioners, required to be modified so
that the State Government may be permitted to do expansion of road to the
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 with
WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 123 of 2025 Page 12
extent of 5 to 10 ft. from the land under occupation by the petitioners without
affecting the right of the parties subject to the outcome of the writ petition.
[23] In the order dated 20.02.2025 in WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 and
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020, it was recorded that Ld. A.G. submitted a proposal
along with satellite map showing the extent of land required from the
petitioners on the average ranging from 5 to 15 feet for the development and
expansion of road from Sanjenthong to Minuthong on the eastern side of the
Imphal River in connection with the development of Smart City Project.
[24] On 21.02.2025, at the request of the learned counsel for the
petitioners, this court directed the State respondents to file satellite map for
expansion of road by 30 ft. thereby requiring approximate range of 5 to 15 ft.
under the occupation of the petitioners in both cases by way of affidavit
showing the area of land required from the possession of the petitioners in
tabular form. Thereafter, the State respondents have filed preliminary affidavit
in compliance of the order dated 21.02.2025 in WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 and
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020.
[25] It is stated that Annexure-R/3 is the lists of encroachers recorded
in village No. 26(A) of Nongpok Ingkhol having 39 persons including the
petitioners in both the cases. Annexure-R/3 is reproduced as:
"LIST OF ENCROACHERSR UPON THE PUBLIC ROAD ON THE EASTERN
BANK OF IMPHAL RIVER FROM SANJENTHONG TO MINUTHONG
(2.20 km):
No. & Name of revenue Village: 26(A)-Nongpok Ingkhol
Sl. Dag No. Name of Encroachers Recorded Affected area Affected Statu Type/Nature of
No area of dimension (in s of encroachment
. 1962 feet) land
survey (in
acre)
Old New Acre Hectare Le Breadt
ngt h
h
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 with
WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 123 of 2025 Page 13
1 5803, 6009, Moirangthem Thoibi Devi .32 & .415 .0076 .0030 51 x 6.5 State Katcha House
5804 6012 W/O Bidhu Singh of land
Sanjenthong
2 Nongmaithem Bungocha .004 .0016 25 x 7 Kactha house
S/O (L) Babathem Singh
of Sanjenthong
3 Mayengbam Dhoni Singh .005 .00020 32 x 7 Katcha house
S/O (L) Amusana Singh of
Sanjenthong
4 Leithambam Brajakumar .003 .0015 27 x 6 Semi Pacca house
Singh S/O Bijoy Singh of
all Sanjenthong
5 i) Chingkham Angouton .005 .0020 32 x 7 Semi pacca house
S/O Khouton
ii) Maibam Sanahanbi
Devi W/O Rajmohon
Singh of all Sanjenthong
6 Sagolsem Shridam of .004 .0016 36 x 5 Katcha house
Sanjenthong
7 Ayekpam Surodhoni Devi .002 .0012 26 x 5 Semi pacca house
W/O Meino of
Sanjenthong
8 Mairubam Lukhoi Singh .003 .0013 28 x 5 Katcha house
9 Abujam Nelson Lairenjao .003 .0013 28 x 5 Free land
of Sanjenthong
10 Sagolshem Devaraj Singh .001 .0007 17 x 5 No house
11 Sagolshem Bulu Singh .003 .0015 28 x 5.5 Katcha house
S/O (L) Shridham of
Sangenthong
12 Sagolshem Puja D/o (L) .003 .0015 22 x 7.5 Semi pacca house
Shridham of Sanjenthong
13 Waikhom Tombi Singh .003 .0015 30 x 5.5 Semi pucca house
S/O Kesho Singh of
Sanjenthong
14 Laishram Premananda .001 .0007 28 x 3 Pucca house
S/O (L) Ibochou of
Sanjenthong
15 Laishram Sanajaoba .003 .0015 31 x 4.5 Pucca house
Singh S/O (L) Chenmi of
Sanjenthong
16 Kamei Mikhu S/O (L) .004 .0016 21 x 8.5 Pucca house
Maringjao of Sanjenthong
17 Maring Ningthoujao S/O .006 .0026 21 x 13.5 Pucca house
(L) Maringjao of
Sanjenthong
18 Maringbi W/O Brojen .005 .0020 13 x 17 Pucca house
Singh of Sanjenthong
19 Lien Gangte S/O Tonglam .034 .0141 105 x 14.5 Free land
Gangte of Sanjenthong
Sl. Details of Encroacher C.S. Dag No. Classific Recor Affect Affected dimension Status Type of structure
No ation ded ed (in feet) of land
area area
.
(in (in
Old New hecta hecatr
are) e
Length Breadt
h
20 i) Mani Golmei S/O (L) 5616 4060 Ingkhol .0.041 .0082 74 x 12 State Kacha gate
Pantikhul Gangmei of 9 Land
Nanthanpung
Ii) Adunmei Rommei
S/O (L) Pantifull of
Nanthanpung
iii) Sana S/O Makukhom
of Nanthanpung
21 Chao Gangmei S/O (L0 5614, 5615 4056 Ingkhol 0.039 .0051 48 x 11.5 Pucca Building
Nanthanpung
22 Mamsi Panmei S/O 5614,5616 4055 Ingkhol 0.022 .0047 46 x 11 Puca Building
Sanjenthong
23 Decoral Pammei S/O. 5613, 5614 4044 Ingkhol 0.015 .0061 58 x 11.5 Semi Kutcha House
Nanthanpung
24 Lambicheng Gangmei 5613 4042 Ingkhol 0.014 .0055 63 x 9.5 Semi Kutcha House
Sanjenthong
25 Md. Abdul Hassan S/O 5610, 5611 4035 Ingkhol .0368 .0009 28 x 3.5 Semi Kutcha House
Abdul Manaf
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 with
WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 123 of 2025 Page 14
26 Nasakalu Kamei S/O 5610, 5611 4031 Ingkhol 0.019 .0031 32 x 10.5 Pucca building
Dimdailong
27 Md. Tolen Khan S/O (L) 5610, 5611 4330 Ingkhol 0.020 .0041 37 x 12 Pucca building
Leikai
28 Khupreingthang Kom 5608, 5609 4026 Inhkhol .0302 .0084 73 x 12.5 Pucca building
S/O Kinneiyang Kom of
Dimdailong
29 Tajkhan S/O Tomba of 5608, 5609 4022 Ingkhol .0161 .0032 27 x 13 Semi Kutcha House
Dimdailong
30 Md. Abdul Hakim S/O 5608, 5609 4021 Ingkhol .0067 .0042 35 x 13 Semi Kacha house
Samerudding of
Borayangbi
31 Md. Ismail Khan S/O 5608, 5609 4016 Ingkhol .0019 .0020 16.5 x 13 Semi Kutcha House
Dimdailong
32 i)Gangmei Roshita W/O 5609, 5608 4015 Ingkhol .0018 .0068 59 x 12.5 Semi Kutcha House
G. Angam of 4014, Ingkhol .0186 Semi Kutcha House
4013 Ingkhol .0121 Semi Kutcha House
Dimdailong
ii) Dr. Angam Gangmei
33 Lamaru Golmei W/O (L) 5608 4012 Ingkhol 0.026 .0033 33 x 11 Semi kutcha House
Dimdailong
34 K. Johnson Kamei S/O 5607, 4011 Ingkhol 0.026 .0032 31 x 11 Pucca building
Dimdailong
35 P. Sanahanbi W/O 4010 Ingkhol 0.025 .0034 32 x 11.5 Pucca building
Dimdaiong
36 Marona W/O Makusingh 4008 Ingkhol 0.025 .0032 32 x 11 Pucca building
37 i)Md. Sahidur Rahaman 4007 Ingkhol 0.009 .0029 32 x 10 Semi Pucca
Dimdailong
ii)Pusera Bibi W/O
Mufizuddin of -do-)
38 Sheikh Rubeiya D/O 4005 Ingkhol 0.009 0.002 31 x 10 Semi Kacha House
Md. Ajad of Lilong 3 8
Heinoumakhong
39 Thongkhothang Baite 5421 2133 Ingkhol 0.024 .0066 60 x 12 Semi Kacha House
of New Lambulane
"
[26] Annexure-R/4 is satellite map showing the extent of land
required from the occupation of the petitioners and other persons mentioned
in the lists of encroachers for widening and development of inter-village road
to 30 ft. The map shows from the range of 5 to 15 ft. as required for the 30 ft
road.
[27] It is also stated that the expansion of road was required in terms
of the letter dated 29.06.2024 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of
Housing & Urban Affairs (Smart Cities Division) to all the Chief Secretaries of
all States/UTs, Principal Secretaries (Urban Development) of all States/UTs
and CEOs of 100 Smart City SPVs to extend Smart Cities Mission upto
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 with
WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 123 of 2025 Page 15
31.03.2025 with additional cost and in order to complete the work within
scheduled time, the development of the road is required.
[28] It is also stated that the writ petitions are not maintainable and
adopts the contents of the counter affidavit dated 17.03.2023 submitted by the
State respondents in WP(C) No. 673 of 2020. The petitioners are entering
over the land and the documents recorded in the revenue records are false
and fabricated. The State respondents have also referred to the provision of
Section 20A(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 which provides that no
injunction shall be granted by the Court under the Act in matters involving
contract relating to an infrastructure project specified in the Schedule and
Section 41(ha) of the Act prohibits injunction against the Government project
on infrastructure.
[29] It is also stated that road and bridges are listed as infrastructure
sub-sectors under Serial No. 1 of the category-Transport in the schedule of
the Act. It is stated that Smart City Project is initiated by the Indian
Government's Smart Cities Mission and aims to transform the city of Imphal,
Manipur into a more sustainable and technologically advanced urban area,
focusing on key aspects like improved mobility, traffic management, solid
waste monitoring, preservation of cultural heritage and development of green
spaces, all with a citizen-centric approach and fund for the Smart City Project
would lapse in March 2025.
[30] The State respondents have also referred to the judgment in NG
Project Limited v. Vinod Kumar Jain & Ors. reported in (2022) 6 SCC 127
where the High Court was advised not to stay the construction of infrastructure
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 with
WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 123 of 2025 Page 16
project while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. It is also stated that new ground raising pure legal issue which required
no proof can be permitted to be raised by the Court at any stage of
proceedings in terms of the judgment of National Textile Corporation
Limited vs. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad & Ors. reported in (2011) 12
SCC 695.
[31] It is also stated that Section 6 of the Manipur Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1975 provides for filing of the
appeal to the Revenue Commissioner against any order passed by any
competent authority in respect of any public premises under Section 3(1) of
the Act. But the petitioner, without exhausting the remedy available under
Section 6 of the Act, approached this Court by way of present writ petition and
hence the same is not maintainable.
[32] It is stated that as per the gazette notification dated 28.03.2023,
Manipur State Land Bank includes State land (Sarkari land) in the State, a
moratorium was imposed on allotment of land under Section 14(1) and 14(2)
of the MLR & LR Act, 1960 thereby notifying that all existing Sarkari land shall
be included in the State Land Bank. It is also stated that as per Section 12(3)
of the Manipur Flood Plain Zoning Act, 1978, no person shall undertake any
activities within the prohibition area or restricted area except with the previous
permission of the Flood Zoning Authority. It is stated that most of the land
under illegal possession of the petitioners falls within the notified flood plain
area and as such, the State respondents also filed reply affidavit/counter
affidavit to writ petition being WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 denying the averments
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 with
WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 123 of 2025 Page 17
made in the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioners are unauthorized
occupants.
[33] The petitioners in WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 filed a reply affidavit to
the additional affidavit filed by the State respondents. It is pointed out that in
the impugned eviction order dated 07.12.2022, there was no whisper of Smart
City Project and the possession of the petitioners for the last 40 years cannot
be termed as illegal encroachers. The key project starts with the renovation
like upgradation of Imphal Smart City Project includes development like
upgrading sewerage system, Nambul and Imphal rivers rejuvenation,
development of Kangla Fort, better transport services, pollution control and
beautification activities in the capital. As a part of this Mission, the rejuvenation
and conservation of Nambul River, Imphal, Manipur was started on
09.03.2019 and the project has to be executed in phase manner under the
National River Conservation Plan of Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change. The first phase of the project was taken up from polluted
stretch of Nambul River from Iroisemba to Heirangoithong area. The mission
does not focus on forceful and arbitrary eviction from private lands without
plans. After signing of the MoU for more than 6 years, the Government of
Manipur was dormant and has only woken up after issuance of the letters
dated 29.06.2025 and 02.12.2024.
[34] The State Government has not approached this Court by way of
any application for vacation/modification of the interim order dated 16.12.2020
but filing by way of additional affidavit dated 21.02.2025 and as such, the same
cannot be considered as an application for vacation of the interim order dated
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 with
WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 123 of 2025 Page 18
16.12.2020. It is also stated that as per the petitioners' measurement, 30 ft.
width road is still available on the eastern side of Imphal River from
Sanjenthong to Minuthong (2.20 Km) and as such, additional acquisition of 5
to 15 ft. from the possession of the petitioners and others for development of
30 ft. road is not at all required.
[35] It is also stated that in the lists of encroachers submitted by the
State respondent in preliminary affidavit dated 21.02.2025, there are many
discrepancies and one of the petitioners is an internally displaced person in
recent Manipur violence. It is prayed that the prayer for vacation of the interim
order be rejected. The State respondents also filed affidavit dated 11.03.2025
to the reply affidavit of the petitioner dated 03.03.2025 in WP(C) No. 127 of
2025.
[36] On 13.03.2025, hearing on vacation/modification of the interim
order was concluded and the matter was reserved for order. The interim order
was extended till the pronouncement of the order. These matters are taken up
for vacating/modifying the interim order.
[37] Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned A.G., submits on merit that the
petitioners are encroachers upon the government land and they are liable to
be evicted at any stage after following the provisions of law. The impugned
orders/notices of eviction have been issued in terms of the provisions of the
Manipur Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1978 and
no legally admissible of the documents have been submitted by the petitioners
along with the writ petition. The names of the petitioners shown in the revenue
records are fake and fabricated as such are not found in the original
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 with
WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 123 of 2025 Page 19
government records. The petitioners have no inherent right to remain in the
government land as encroachers, even though they are having electricity
connection, adhaar cards and voter cards, etc. in their names.
[38] On the limited question of vacation of the interim order, Ld. A.G.
refers to Section 20A and Section 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Sub
Section (ha) was inserted in Section 41 in the year 2018 and read as:
"41.(ha) If it would impede or delay the progress or
completion of any infrastructure project or interfere with
the continued provision of relevant facility related thereto
or services being the subject-matter of such project."
[39] It is stated that the development of inter-village road in
pursuance of the development of Imphal Smart City Project is an infrastructure
project and no stay can be granted in terms of the judgment of NG Projects
Ltd. reported in (2022) 6 SCC 127. Learned A.G. refers to the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh 7 Ors. vs. State of Punjab &
Ors. reported in (2011) 11 SCC 396 where it was held that the encroacher
has no legal right for regularisation. Learned A.G. also refers to Milk
Producers Association, Orissa & Ors. v. State of Orissa & Ors. reported
in (2006) 3 SCC 229 to the point that illegal encroachment shall be evicted
and there is no question of rehabilitation of such illegal encroachment.
[40] Reference is also made in the case of Joginder v. State of
Haryana reported in (2021) 3 SCC 300 that illegal encroachment cannot claim
regularisation. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of In
Re: Direction in the matter of demolition of Structure with WP(Crl.) No.
162 reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 3291, shall not be applicable in the
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 with
WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 123 of 2025 Page 20
present case, as the said case was related to the demotion of illegal structure
of the criminals without following due process and will not have any application
with regard to the unauthorized structure in any public place road, street,
footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies, etc. Learned
A.G. also refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Orissa v. Rajakishore Das reported in (1996) 4 SCC 221 that illegal
construction without permission from the authority are liable to be evicted.
Similarly, M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu & Ors. reported in
(1999) 6 SCC 464 is cited.
[41] Learned A.G. further submits that the petitioners have failed to
produce any legal documents to satisfy that they have been staying for a
period of more than 40 years and stated that it is a mix question of fact and
law and has to be proved before the civil Court. Reference is made to the
judgment of Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India reported in (2004)
10 SCC 779.
[42] Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand & Ors. reported in (1996) 4
SCC 349, learned A.G. urges that entries in Jamabandi are not proof of title
and they are only statements for revenue purpose and hence, the petitioners
have no right over the land on the basis of such entry. It is also stated that the
interim order dated 16.12.2020 passed in WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 is not made
absolute till date and is extended from time to time. Learned G.A. refers to
para 54 of the 5-Judge Constitution Bench decision in High Court Bar
Association, Allahabad vs. State of UP & Ors. reported in (2024) 6 SCC
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 with
WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 123 of 2025 Page 21
267 that extension of interim order should be by reasoned order. It is also
stated that the judgment of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn.,
reported in (1985) 3 SCC 545 will not applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
[43] Learned A.G. also refers to Section 12(3) of Manipur Flood Plain
Zoning Act, 1978 which bars any activities in the restricted area except with
the previous permission of the Flood Zoning Authority. Most of the land under
illegal possession of the writ petitioners falls within the flood plain as indicated
in the satellite map. It is submitted that the interim order may be vacated or
modified so as to enable the government to develop 30 ft. width road whereby
the land under possession of the petitioners and others are required to the
range of 5 to 15 ft for the said project. It is submitted that the development of
the project is part of the Imphal Smart City Project and for the benefit of all the
people and Court have to make a balance between individual right and right
of the community.
[44] On the other hand, Mrs. G. Pushpa, learned counsel for the
petitioners in WP(C) No. 673 of 2020, has made strong objection to the prayer
for vacation/modification of the interim order dated 16.12.2020 passed by this
Court whereby restraining the State respondents from evicting the petitioners.
Learned counsel also refers to para 45 and 46 of the judgment of the High
Court Bar Association, Allahabad (Supra) where it was held that interim
order granted after hearing both the parties, can only be vacated on
application of the parties and in the present case, no application for vacation
of the interim order has been filed by the State respondents and it is merely
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 with
WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 123 of 2025 Page 22
on the basis of the oral submissions made by the learned A.G. during the
course of hearing and on the basis of the satellite map. It is stated that the
interim order dated 16.12.2020 was passed after hearing both parties on
merit.
[45] It is also stated that no opportunity of being heard is given to the
petitioners of making their case to the preparation of satellite map and extend
of land i.e. 5 to 15 ft. to be affected from the land under their possessions. It
is also stated that the decision of NG Project Ltd. (Supra) as relied by the
learned A.G. is not applicable in the present case and the fact of that case is
regarding government contract.
[46] Mrs. G. Pushpa, learned counsel for the petitioners, has also
refuted the plea of the learned A.G. that the revenue records entering the
names of the petitioners and other records such as electricity bill, election
voter card and adhaar card are false and fabricated and such plea cannot be
accepted in terms of Section 74, 75, 76 & 77 of the Indian Evidence Act which
provide for admissibility of public and private documents. It is stated that
certified copy of the pattas, dag chittha and jamabandi annexed by the
petitioners are to be presumed to be public documents and their authenticity
cannot be denied by the State respondents as such. Learned counsel for the
petitioners has pointed out that the petitioners have submitted enough
documents along with the writ petition and has also produced additional
documents to show their long possession over the land under their
occupation.
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 with
WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 123 of 2025 Page 23
[47] It is the specific case of the petitioners that Manipur Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1978 is not applicable to
the present case and if the Act is presumed to be applicable for the sake of
argument but without admitting the same, the impugned notice issued to the
petitioners for eviction is in violation of Section 3(1) of the Act which stipulates
enquiry to be conducted before issuing an eviction notice. It is stated that in
the present case, no enquiry was conducted and no opportunity of being heard
was offer to the petitioners to make their points. Even if enquiry as alleged
was conducted, it was done without affording any opportunity to the petitioner
and the same is not an enquiry in true sense.
[48] Mrs. G. Pushpa, learned counsel for the petitioners, refers to the
judgment of Olga Tellis (supra) which stipulates that the slum dwellers
encroaching over the foot path, have right to shelter, right to live and right to
work and eviction from the pavement will uproot them from their residence and
occupation. It is submitted that in the present case also if the petitioners are
evicted from the land under their possession, they will have no place to shelter
and most of them are daily wage earners. Mrs. G. Pushpa, learned counsel
for the petitioners, submits that one of the petitioners is an internally displaced
person in the recent Manipur violence and if anything is done to the property
without his knowledge or presence, it will cause prejudice to him.
[49] Mrs. G. Puhpa, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that
Smart City Project does not stipulate forceful eviction of peaceful residents
and eviction of the citizens. The present eviction notice is selective against the
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 with
WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 123 of 2025 Page 24
poor and helpless people. It is submitted that the impugned eviction notice
dated 07.12.2020 be set aside.
[50] Mrs. Th. Babita, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.
127 of 2025, adopts the submissions of Mrs. G. Pushpa, learned counsel for
the petitioners in WP(C) No. 673 of 2020. However, she further refers to
Section 2(g) of the Manipur Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1978 which stipulates that unauthorized occupant means 6
years before the commencement of this Act and since the petitioners are in
possession of the land for the last 40 years, the provisions of the Act will not
be applicable. Learned counsel further submits that even if the Act is
applicable, no notice was served to the petitioners in terms of Section 3 of the
Act. The eviction case is also bad for non-impleading of the affected parties
such as petitioners. It is prayed that the eviction order is also bad, as it was
issued when the Class 10 and 12 examination was in full swing and it would
affect academic career of the children adversely. It is submitted that most of
the petitioners are poor and daily labourers and if they are uprooted within
three days, they will have no place for stay and will affect their livelihood.
[51] During the course of hearing, Mrs. Th. Babita, learned counsel
for the petitioners, also produces many new documents to show that the
petitioners are occupying the present land and they have applied for allotment
of the land under their occupation. Since allotment order has been issued to
the similarly situated persons, it is submitted that the petitioners are also
entitled to get allotment order of the land under their possession.
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 with
WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 123 of 2025 Page 25
[52] Mrs. Th. Babita, learned counsel for the petitioners, refers to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indrajeet Kaur vs.
Nirpal Singh reported in (2001) 1 SCC 706 which emphasized the
compliance of principle of natural justice to the affected parties and it is
submitted that in the present case, no opportunity was granted to the
petitioners before eviction notice was issued. Learned counsel also refers to
the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in In Re: Directions in the
matter of demolition of structures reported as 2024 Legal Eagle (SC) 998
which gives protection against the illegal demolition of structures by the State
authority without following due procedure of law and it was emphasized that a
minimum of 15 days' notice and personal hearing of owner of such structure
be given. The impugned eviction order is against the direction issued by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
[53] Reference is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Grasim Industries Limited vs. State of Madhya Pradesh &
Anr. reported as (2024) Legal Eagle (SC) 1103 regarding the violation of
principle of natural justice, thereby offering no opportunity of hearing before
imposition of the penalty. Mrs. Th. Babita, learned counsel for the petitioners,
relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in In Re Manoj Tibrewal
Akash: 2024 INSC 863 which lay down the procedure to be followed in road
widening project. The relevant para is reproduced as:
"30. Before acting in pursuance of a road widening project, the
State or its instrumentalities must:
(i) Ascertain the existing width of the road in terms of
official records/maps;
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 with
WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 123 of 2025 Page 26
(ii) Carry out a survey/demarcation to ascertain
whether there is any encroachment on the existing
road with reference to the existing records/maps;
(iii) If an encroachment is found, issue a proper, written
notice to the encroachers to remove the
encroachment;
(iv) In the event that the notice raises an objection with
regard to the correctness or the validity of the
notice, decide the objection by a speaking order in
due compliance with the principles of natural
justice;
(v) If the objection is rejected, furnish reasonable
notice to the person against whom adverse action
is proposed and upon the failure of the person
concerned to act, proceed in accordance with law,
to remove the encroachment unless restrained by
an order of the competent authority or court; and
(vi) If the existing width of road including the State land
adjoining the road is not sufficient to accommodate
the widening of the road, steps must be taken by
the State to acquire the land in accordance with law
before undertaking the road widening exercise."
[54] It is submitted that no process for demarcation and notice to the
encroachers was given. Mrs. Th. Babita, learned counsel submits that in view
of the documents annexed by the petitioners along with writ petition and
additional documents produced by way of additional affidavit and submitted
during the course of hearing, it is clearly established that the petitioners are in
possession of the land under their occupation for more than 40 years and their
applications for allotment are pending with the authority. Similarly situated
persons have been given allotment order over the land under their possession
and the petitioners are also entitled for regularization of the land under their
possession. The petitioners cannot be stated as encroachers over the public
land as they are paying taxes and their names have been recorded in the
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 with
WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 123 of 2025 Page 27
relevant Government records. It is stated that the impugned order of eviction
be set aside.
[55] Mrs. G. Pushpa, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.
673 of 2020, refers to the judgment in the case of Ningombam Parijat Singh
vs. Chief Commissioner, Govt. of Manipur reported as (1969) 0
AIR(Manipur) 79 which states that Dag Chitha is a public document and the
same can be relied and it is stated that the judgments relied by the learned
A.G. are not applicable in the present case, as they are mostly concerned with
the Government tenders.
[56] This Court has considered the materials on record including
those submitted during the course of hearing, submissions made at the bar
and the case law cited by the parties.
[57] In the present order, this Court considers the question of
vacating/modifying the interim order and is not concerned with the merit of the
case, even though both sides have argued extensively on the merit of the
case.
[58] From the pleadings of the parties, it is seen that the petitioners
are occupants over the government land for the past many years. However,
their names have been recorded as encroachers over the public land and
allotment orders for the lands under their occupation are yet to be issued by
the authority, even though they have applied for the same. From the record, it
is seen that some of the petitioners have recorded their names in the revenue
records as owners, but any allotment order in this regard has not been
produced by the petitioners.
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 with
WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 123 of 2025 Page 28
[59] At the moment, this Court is not expressing any opinion as to
whether the entry of the petitioners' names in the revenue records is false and
fabricated as alleged by the learned A.G. and the same is left to be decided
in appropriate proceeding or in the main matter. This Court is considering the
request of the State respondents for permission for development of the 30 ft
wide road from Sanjenthong to Minuthong on eastern bank of Imphal river as
a part of Imphal Smart City Project. It is also seen from the additional affidavit
submitted by the State along with satellite map that in the development of the
inter-village road, the lands under the occupation of the petitioners and others
to the extent of 5 to 15 ft., may be affected.
[60] It is an admitted fact that vide interim order dated 16.12.2020 in
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020, after extensively hearing the learned counsel for the
petitioners and State respondents, this Court passed an interim order staying
the eviction of the petitioners from land under their occupation till next date
and interim order has been extended from time to time. Similarly, in WP(C)
No. 127 of 2025, on the assurance of the learned A.G., that the petitioners
would not be evicted till next date due to ongoing examination of Class 10 and
12 and such undertaking was extended from time to time and when the
undertaking was withdrawn by the learned A.G., this Court passed interim
order of no eviction till next date and in both matters, it was observed that the
interim orders would be extended till the pronouncement of the order in both
the cases.
[61] Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad (Supra), the learned counsel for
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 with
WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 123 of 2025 Page 29
the petitioners submit that the prayer for vacation/modification of interim order
by the State respondent is not maintainable in absence of any application in
this regard. On the other hand, learned A.G. submits that in terms of para 54
of the said judgment, reasons have to be recorded for its extension also and
in the present case, no reason was given for such extension.
[62] This Court is of the view that the additional affidavit dated
21.02.2025 filed by the State respondents for vacation/modification of interim
order dated 16.12.2020 and subsequent orders can be treated as an
application for the said purpose. As such, this Court is hearing the matter on
the vacation/modification of the interim orders.
[63] From the Annexures-R/3 & R/4 of the preliminary affidavit dated
21.02.2025 filed by the State respondents, the lists of 39 encroachers i.e.
petitioners in two writ petitions i.e. WP(C) Nos. 673 of 2020 & 127 of 2025 are
listed with the measurement to be affected in feet along with the satellite map
and the same is in the range of 5 to 15 ft.
[64] This Court is conscious of the requirement of development of
road for welfare of the general public and also the interest of individual
persons. Without expressing any opinion on the pending applications of the
petitioners and others for allotment of the land under their possession and also
on the question of illegal encroachment, a permission can be granted to the
State for development of 30 ft. width road along the eastern side of Imphal
River from Sanjenthong to Minuthong in connection with Imphal Smart City
Project.
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 with
WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 123 of 2025 Page 30
[65] In the circumstances, the proposal for development of 30 ft. width
road on eastern side of Imphal River from Sanjenthong to Minuthong is
allowed with the following conditions:
(i) The State authority shall intimate to the petitioners and
others the extent of land under their occupation, to be
affected by the project for development of 30 ft. width road
within 10 days, if not informed earlier.
(ii) Before demolition of the structures and other standing
properties over the affected land, evaluation of standing
properties including tree has to be ascertained for
compensation be given to the affected parties for the
same in accordance with law.
(iii) After intimating the extent of land required, a notice of 15
days be given to the petitioners and others for demolition
and removal of structures and other standing property and
for vacating from the affected portion of land for
development of 30 ft. width road. On failure to do so, the
State authority may take up necessary step for demolition
of structures and standing property and eviction of the
petitioners and others from the affected portion of land.
(iv) For property belonging to the internally displaced persons,
special care shall be taken by the State respondents in
case of demolition, if any, that the remaining portion of the
structure is not affected.
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 with
WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 123 of 2025 Page 31
[66] With these directions and observations, the interim orders dated
16.12.2020 and 13.03.2025 in WP(C) Nos. 673 of 2020 & 127 of 2025 are
modified. However, the petitioners shall not be evicted from the remaining
portion of the land under their occupation without the leave of this Court.
[67] It is clarified that the pendency of the present writ petitions and
the modification of the interim orders shall not bar the State authority from
considering the pending applications for allotment. Other contentions of both
parties are left open to be agitated at appropriate stage.
[68] With these observations and directions made in para 65, 66 &
67, interim orders stand modified and list the main cases on 08.07.2025.
JUDGE
Kh. Joshua Maring
KH. JOSHUA KH. JOSHUA
MARING
MARING Date: 2025.05.29
13:55:08 +05'30'
WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 with
WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with
MC(WP(C) No. 123 of 2025 Page 32
