NONGPOK SEKMAI COLLECTIVE FARMING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. Vs. SEKMAI KHUNBI JOINT FARMING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugns the judgment dated 2-5-1977 of the Revenue Tribunal, Manipur, dismissing the petitioner-Society's revision petition under Section 95 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.

(2.) THE Deputy Commissioner, Central District, Manipur, by his order dated 17-4-1976 allotted to the respondent-Society, namely, Sekmai Khunbi Joint Farming Co-operative Society Ltd., Registered No. 59 of 1969, 46.29 acres of land under C.S. Dag Nos. 259, 287, 359 and 371 of Village No. 116 within Thoubal Sub-division. From that order, the petitioner Society, namely, Nongpok Sekmai Collective Farming Co-operative Society Ltd., Registered No. 11 of 1975-76, filed a revenue revision application under Section 95 of the Act, urging, inter alia, that the petitioner-Society reclaimed and improved the disputed land in 1967 and had ever since been in cultivating possession and expected to obtain allotment thereof; but, to their surprise, the disputed land was allotted to the respondent Society, and on a revision application, the Hon'ble Lt. Governor/Administrator set aside the said allotment order holding that the respondent Society consisted of imposters, vide Order dated 9-7-1970; thereafter, the respondent Society eliminated some of their members so as to claim preference under Rule 8(ii) of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1962, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'; the petitioner Society also applied for allotment of the same claiming similar preference under Rule(8)(ii), but the Deputy Commissioner passed order on 17-4-1976 allotting 46.29 acres of the dispute land to the respondent Society.

(3.) MR . Y. Imo Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent Society takes a preliminary objection contending that no revision application under Section 115, C.P.C or Article 227 of the Constitution against the order of the Tribunal passed in revision under Section 95 of the Act is maintainable, inasmuch as the impugned order is not of a Civil Court and it was passed by the Tribunal while Article 227, as amended by the Forty-Second Amendment was in force, which excluded Tribunals from the superintending jurisdiction of the High Courts.