LAWS(MANIP)-2016-6-22

YAITHIBI KHUNOU JOINT FARMING CO-OPERATIVE SOCEITY LTD ; ELANGBAM RAJMOHAN SINGH; THANGANG SURANJIT SINGH; MD NOOR MOHAMMAD; MD AMIJUR RAHAMAN; CHINGTHAM PRABHABATI DEVI; THONGAM SUNIL SINGH; MD ABDUL HALEM; R K LEIBAKLEIMA DEVI; R K PRAKRITI DEVI; WAIKHO Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS ; DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THOUBAL, MANIPUR; SUB-DEPUTY COLLECTOR, HEIROK, THOUBAL DISTRICT, MANIPUR; SENJAM KUNJO SINGH; LAISHRAM BROJEN SINGH; SENJAM OMOR SINGH; SENJAM IBOMCHA SINGH; MD ABDUL WAHID; YENGKHOM CHINGKHU @ CHINGLEN SIN

Decided On June 30, 2016
Yaithibi Khunou Joint Farming Co-Operative Soceity Ltd ; Elangbam Rajmohan Singh; Thangang Suranjit Singh; Md Noor Mohammad; Md Amijur Rahaman; Chingtham Prabhabati Devi; Thongam Sunil Singh; Md Abdul Halem; R K Leibakleima Devi; R K Prakriti Devi; Waikho Appellant
V/S
State Of Manipur And Ors ; Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal, Manipur; Sub-Deputy Collector, Heirok, Thoubal District, Manipur; Senjam Kunjo Singh; Laishram Brojen Singh; Senjam Omor Singh; Senjam Ibomcha Singh; Md Abdul Wahid; Yengkhom Chingkhu @ Chinglen Sin Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Part - VII Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for quashing or setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 07.01.2002 of the learned Revenue Tribunal, Manipur at Imphal in Revenue Tribunal Appeal Case No. 2 of 1998 and the impugned letter dated 01.10.2014 of the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal issued in pursuance of the judgment and order mentioned above.

(2.) Heard Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Additional Advocate General, Manipur for the State respondents and Mr. S. Devajit, learned counsel for the private respondents.

(3.) The main grounds on which the petitioners have prayed for quashing or setting aside the said impugned judgment and order and the impugned letter are that the petitioners in this case are also interested parties on the subject matter in dispute before the learned Tribunal, therefore, are also necessary party, but since they were not made a party, the judgment and order passed in that case cannot be allowed to stand, and secondly, the subject matter of dispute has been directly and substantially dealt with and decided upon by the learned Tribunal, Manipur in Revenue Revision case No. 6 of 1980, and in Revenue Revision Case No. 28 of 1996 and in Civil Rule No. 454 of 1988 before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, therefore, is barred by Res Judicata as provided under Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code.