LALMALSAWM Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. G. Khupchinpau, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Addl. G.A. for the respondents.

(2.) The Writ Petition No. 818/98 had been filed by the applicant of the present miscellaneous case. On 14.5.99 when the aforesaid writ petition No. 818/98 was taken up by the court, no one appeared for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Addl. G.A. however appeared for the State respondent and submitted that the land claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition was Govt. Khas land and cannot be acquired by the Govt. Since the petitioner's case in the writ petition was that the land was actually owned by the petitioner and acquired by the Govt. without payment of compensation, the court dismissed the writ petition by an order dated 14.5.99 stating therein that the question of ownership of the land in question cannot be decided in the writ petition because evidence is required to establish such ownership. Misc. Case No. 395/99 has been filed by the writ petitioner for recalling the said order dated 14.5.99 dismissing the writ petition.

(3.) Mr. G. Khupchinpau, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 14.5.99 when the aforesaid case was called for hearing, the counsel for the petitioner was unable to attend the court due to illness and in the absence of the petitioner or his counsel the court dismissed the writ petition. He further contended that if the petitioner or his counsel was present on 14.5.99, he would have been able to persuade the court to record the finding that the land in question was actually owned by the petitioner and not by the Govt. as contended by the learned Addl. G.A.Mr. R,S. Reisang, learned Adll. G.A. on the other hand, submitted that since the writ petition was dismissed on merits and not on the ground of default on the part of the petitioner by the order dated 14.5.99, the proper course for the applicant of the present Misc. Case is to file a review application for reviewing of the said order dated 14.5.99 or to file under Article 226 a writ appeal before the Division Bench against the order dated 14.5.99 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court.