HEMKHOLUN HAOKIP Vs. DAIKHOTHANG HAOKIP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.8.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(C) No. 394 of 2011, by which the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition.

(2.) THE facts, as can be gleaned from the pleadings and as may be relevant for consideration by this Court, may be stated below. The writ appellant as the petitioner had filed the aforesaid writ petition challenging the order dated 27.6.2011 passed by the Sub - Divisonal Officer, Chakpikarong, Chandel District, by which the earlier order dated 28.02.2011 passed by the Sub -Deputy Collector, Khengjoy was cancelled. According to the petitioner, by the said order dated 28.2.2011, the writ petitioner/writ appellant was declared the Chief/ Chairman of the New Samtal Village for a period of 5 years and also that the New Samtal Village is the property of the Mukhong Insung Committee (Mukhong Sub -Clan Committee). According to the petitioner, in the year 1982, a sub -clan of Haokip community namely, Mukhong Insung Committee (Mukhong Sub -Clan Committee) purchased a village land namely, Samtal Village (now renamed as New Samtal Village) situated within the Tengnoupal Sub -Division, Chandel District, Manipur from one Thangkholet Haokip (the father of the present respondents No.6 and 7) by executing a sale deed. The said Committee invited Shri Thangkhohen Haokip (the father of the present respondent No.1) to look after the said village as its Chief without having any right of ownership over the said land and he represented the said Committee in the execution of the sale deed when the said land was purchased from Thangkholet Haokip by the said Committee. It may be mentioned that normally the Chief of a Kuki village, according to the Kuki customary laws, is the absolute owner of the village land and the Chiefship is a hereditary one. It is the case of the petitioner that, in the present case, since the land belonged to the said Mukhong Insung Committee (Mukhong Sub -Clan Committee) representing the sub -clan, the said Thangkhohen Haokip was merely a nominal chief without having absolute right or ownership over the said New Samtal Village. Later on, on the request of the aforesaid Thangkholet Haokip, (the original owner/vendor, the father of the present respondents No. 6 and 7), the Sub -Divisional Officer, Chakpikarong vide order dated 1.10.1982 transferred the Chiefship of the said village to Thangkhohen Haokip (the father of the respondent No. 1). The said Thangkholet Haokip, however, subsequently challenged the aforesaid order dated 1.10.1982 transferring the chiefship to Thangkhohen Haokip (father of the respondent No.1) by filing a Hill Misc. Appeal Case No.1 of 1983 before the Court of Deputy Commissioner, Chandel, who vide order dated 27.3.1985 decided the case in favour of the said Thangkhohen Haokip (father of the present Respondent No.1) ordering that the said Thangkhohen Haokip shall be the new Chief of the said New Samtal Village and directing the Sub - Divisional Officer, Chakpikarong to make necessary entry in the revenue records. According to the petitioner, the said Thangkholet Haokip (the father of the respondents No. 6 and 7), later on filed a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, which was registered as Civil Rule No.211 of 1985 challenging the aforesaid order dated 1.10.1982 passed by the Sub -Divisional Officer, Chakpikarong as well as the order dated 27.3.1985 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chandel. The Gauhati High Court vide order dated 6.4.1995 disposed of the aforesaid writ petition by setting aside the aforesaid orders dated 1.10.82 and 27.3.1985 and directing the parties to approach the civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The aforesaid order dated 6.4.1995 passed in Civil Rule No.211 of 1985, being a short one and relevant for proper adjudication of this writ petition, is reproduced hereinbelow: -

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Single Judge, however, without proper appreciation of the facts and the law involved, had dismissed the writ petition.