[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Manipur High Court
Khaidem Muhindro Singh vs State Of Manipur & 4 Ors on 16 March, 2026
Author: A.Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A.Guneshwar Sharma
185-186
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC (WP(C)) No.515 of 2025 with
WP(C) No.349 of 2021
Khaidem Muhindro Singh
& Anr ... Applicants
-Versus-
State of Manipur & 4 Ors ... Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.GUNESHWAR SHARMA
16.3.2026 (O R A L)
Present Mr.Borish, learned counsel along with Ms.Monika,
learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.H.Debendra, learned Addl.
A.G, Manipur assisted by Ms.I.Sarmila, learned Jr.Govt counsel for State
respondent Nos.1 to 5.
[2] By the present writ petition, two petitioners approached
this Court with prayers in the nature of mandamus and certiorari for
quashing/setting aside the impugned orders dated 23.3.2021 and
12.4.2021 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thoubal, in Cril Misc
Case Nos.2 of 2021 and 3 of 2021 and common order dated 12.4.2021
directing the petitioners to remove the encroachment from Government
land along NH 102.
[3] Vide order dated 17.4.2021 passed by this Court in WP(C)
No.349 of 2021, it was directed that impugned orders dated 23.3.2021,
5.4.2021 and 12.4.2021 shall not be given effect to till the next date
and interim order has been extended from time to time. During
pendency of the writ petition, petitioner No.2 expired and his legal
representatives are brought on record. Petitioner No.1, Khaidem
Muhindro Singh, is the s/o original petitioner No.2.Khaidem
Kullachandra Singh.
[4] For the expansion of NH-102, respondents purchased a
piece of land measuring .0060 hectares covered by CS Dag
No.6181/6293 under Patta No.762 A 203/2146, (new) out of .0113
hectares, village No.28-Thoubal Tehsil Sub-Division Thoubal, belonging
to the petitioner No.1, Shri Khaidemm Muhindro Singh for a
consideration amount of Rs.7,74,974/-. Similarly, the State
Government purchased homestead land measuring .0030 hectares
village No.28-Thoubal Tehsil Sub-Division Thoubal village No.28-
Thoubal Tehsil Sub-Division Thoubal covered by CS Dag No.6181 under
Patta No.762-A, 203 (new) out out of homestead land belonging to
petitioner No.2, Shri Khaidem Kullachandra Singh for consideration of
Rs.3,87,487/-. The petitioners have received full consideration amount
of the sale deed.
[5] It is stated that lands of the petitioners are situated on
the eastern side of the Highway and after execution of the sale deeds,
State Government claimed 10 ft more from the private land of the
petitioners, from the last boundary of the demarcated portion of the
highway. Vide order dated 23.3.2021 passed by the SDM, Thoubal in
Cril Misc Case No.2 of 2021 under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C, petitioner
No.1 Khaidem, Muhindro, was directed for removal of encroachment
from government land for expansion of NH 102 in the public interest
and vide another order dated 5.4.2021 passed by the SDM, Thoubal in
Cril Misc Case No.3 of 2021 initiated under Section 133 Cr.P.C,
petitioner No.2 Khaidem Kullachandra Singh was directed to remove
encroachment from the public land for expansion of NH 102 in public
interest and vide another common order dated 12.4.2021 passed by
the SDM Thoubal in Cril Misc Case No.2 of 2021 and Cril Misc Case No.3
of 2021, earlier orders were made absolute and petitioners were
directed for removal of encroachment on or before 15.4.2021. Being
aggrieved by the three orders, petitioners filed present petition being
WP(C) No.349 of 2021 and as stated above this Court passed interim
order dated 17.4.2021 suspending operation of the impugned orders.
[6] Petitioners also filed MC (WP(C)) No.515 of 2025 for
amendment of the petition by inserting few paras in the petition. The
State has also filed counter affidavit alleging that petitioners have not
approached the learned SDM Thoubal to vacate the orders of removal
of the encroachment upon the land purchased by the State from the
petitioners. It is submitted that writ petition may be disposed of as the
petitioners have already received full consideration of the land
purchased by the registered sale deeds and the petitioners have not
disputed the validity of the sale deeds.
[7] Mr.Borish, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the impugned orders are issued by the SDM Thoubal, treating the
private land of the petitioners as government land and the impugned
orders may be set aside. On the other Mr.H.Debendra, learned Dy.A.G,
Manipur submits that the registered sale deeds executed between the
petitioner and respondents are not in dispute. After receiving full
amount of sale/consideration amount, petitioners are still occupying
some portion of the government land and have not fully vacated from
the land sold by them to the State.
[8] Mr.H.Devendra, learned Dy. A.G, Manipur clarifies that
the impugned orders passed by the SDM Thoubal, in two proceedings
are issued for getting possession of the land sold to the State by the
petitioners. Regarding the prayer for amendment of the petition in MC
(WP(C)) No.515 of 2025, it is stated that it nothing but a technique to
delay the proceedings after obtaining stay of eviction from this Court.
[9] During course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners and respondents submit that the writ petition may be
disposed of with a direction to the State respondents to conduct a fresh
demarcation about the extent of boundary of the land purchased by
the State from the petitioners in terms of the separate sale deeds dated
18.1.2020.
[10] In the circumstance, the writ petition is disposed of with
the direction to the State respondents to conduct demarcation to
ascertain the extent of land purchased by the State from the two
petitioners vide two separate sale deeds dated 18.1.2020.
[11] Demarcation shall be conducted on 27.3.2026 at 10.00
AM onwards. Effort shall be made to complete the demarcation,
preferably within two months. In case demarcation could not be
completed, the same may be conducted on the next working day with
prior information to both the parties.
[12] Petitioners shall cooperate and participate in the
demarcation proceedings with all relevant records. Till completion of
demarcation, petitioners shall not be evicted from the premises
presently occupied by them.
With this direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
[13] It is made clear that the writ petition is disposed of
without going into the merit of the case.
WP(C) No.349 of 2021 is disposed of. Interim order
merges with the final order. MC (WP(C)) No.515 of 2025 also stands
disposed of.
JUDGE
Priyojit
RAJKUMA Digitally signed
by RAJKUMAR
R PRIYOJIT PRIYOJIT SINGH
Date: 2026.03.18
SINGH 11:03:37 +05'30'
