GINZAKHAM VAIPHEI @ GINKHAM VAIPHEI Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Ng. Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and also Mr.Raghumani, learned State Counsel.

(2.) THIS writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.12.2011 passed by the learned single Judge in WP(C) No. 767 of 2011 declining to interfere with the order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner/Estate Officer, Churachandpur for evicting the petitioner from the disputed land. It appears that the appellant, apprehending eviction from the land occupied by him, approached the learned Civil Judge, (Jr.Divn) Churachandpur in O.S.No. 10/2011 for declaration of his title to the land in question and for issuing temporary injunction to restrain the respondent No. 3 from carrying out the eviction process. The learned Civil Judge, by the order dated 23.08.2011 in Judl.Misc Case No. 18 of 2011 issued temporary injunction restraining the respondents from carrying out eviction process. Aggrieved by this, respondent No. 3 preferred Misc Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2011 from the order dated 23.08.2011 before the learned District Judge, Manipur West, which by the order dated 19.10.2011 stayed the injunction order of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Divn), passed in Judl Misc Case No. 18 of 2011. Taking cue from this order, the respondent No. 3 thereafter issued the eviction notice requiring the appellant to dismantle his structures/building constructed on the land occupied by him immediately, failing which, he would be liable to pay penalty to the extent of 6 times the annual revenue of the land. The respondents accordingly resumed eviction/dismantling process of the appellant's land. This prompted the appellant to file WP(C) No. 767 of 2011 before this Court challenging the eviction notice dated 21.10.2011 with a prayer for directing the respondents to restore possession of the disputed land to him. The learned single Judge, as noted earlier, declined to interfere with the order of the respondent No. 3 and disposed of the writ petition by directing the learned District Judge, Manipur West to dispose of the Misc Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2011 within two weeks. Liberty was however granted therein to the appellant to agitate the points urged by him in the writ petition before the learned District Judge, Manipur West. Aggrieved by this, this writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

(3.) MR .Ng.Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned single Judge has completely overlooked the provisions of Section 15 of the MLR and LR Act ("the Act" for short) read with Rule 18 of the MLR and LR, Rules, 1961 ("the Rules" for short) in declining to interfere with the impugned order issued by the respondent No. 3. According to the learned counsel, the respondent No. 3 was obliged under the law to observe the concept of principles of natural justice as enshrined in Section 15 of the Act read with Rule 18 of the Rules, which render the impugned order illegal. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that whether the appellant is the owner of the disputed land is yet to be adjudicated upon by competent civil court of jurisdiction and the eviction order passed by the respondent No. 3 despite the pendency of civil case will nullify any decree which may be obtained by him if the suit succeeds. In any view of the matter, argued the learned counsel, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law, and is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, Mr.Raghumani, learned State counsel forcefully defends the impugned order and submits that the order of the learned single Judge is innocuous in nature and has in no way caused prejudice to the appellant and that the point urged by him before this court can be more effectively argued by him before the civil court, which is now seized with the matter. Having not exhausted the alternative statutory remedy, he must be told off at the gate for ventilating his grievance before this court by bypassing the alternative remedy provided for by law. He also submits that once the eviction process has been carried out and the appellant ousted from his possession, the question of restoring possession of the land to the appellant does not arise. He, therefore submits, that the writ appeal is bereft of merit and is liable to be dismissed.