H. MUNAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, for short the Act, has not defined the expression 'survey officer'. This has led to a lengthy argument as to whether the Sub -Deputy Collectors who have been characterised as 'revenue officers' by Section 4 of the Act, can exercise the power at survey officers. The need for decision of this aspect has arisen because the petitioners claim to have obtained settlement of some dags which were carved out from Dag No. 1003. This carving out or creation of off -shoot dags is attributed to the Sub -Deputy Collector of Mayang. The parent dag, this is, 1003 was, however, settled with the respondent -society. Having known about the creation of the off -shoot dags, the co -operative society approached, the learned Deputy Commissioner under Section 41 read with Section 81 of the Act for cancellation of the off -shoot dags. This petition was allowed as the Deputy Commissioner took the view that the off -shoot dags had no entity in the eye of law as they had been created by an officer having no jurisdiction. On an appeal being preferred before the learned Revenue Tribunal, the view of the Deputy Commissioner has been upheld. Before examining the legality of the learned Tribunal's order, it may be pointed out that the carving out of the dags had happened not during the period of 'revenue survey' which in respect to the village in question had been over by March, 1970; but the same was in 1974.

(2.) WE have been taken through the various provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder hereinafter the Rules, by the learned counsel of both the sides to impress upon us their rival contentions. Shri Nodiachand for the petitioners has contended that an analyst of the different provisions of the Act and the Rules would show that the Sub -Deputy Collector is not only a revenue officer, but also a survey officer. To bring home this submission, he has referred to Sections 27, 28, 29, 42, 43 amongst others showing the rights conferred, and duties imposed, on a survey officer. This right includes the power to divide the land into survey numbers and to reconstitute or form new survey numbers, as stated in Section 28 of the Act. We are then referred to Section 48 (a) which has stated that a revenue officer may exercise any of the powers of the survey officer under Section 27 except the power of assessing the cost of hired labour. By drawing our attention to Section 31 which has made a distinction; between a survey officer and a settlement officer, it is contended that the learned Tribunal committed a manifest error of law in holding that a Sub -Deputy Collector has no power in question because he is not one of the officers included in the category mentioned in Section 6 of the Act. The submission is that that section has mentioned about 'Settlement Officers'' as would appear from the heading, of the section; and as such the mere fact that the Sub -Deputy Collector is not an officer mentioned in that section will not be decisive of the matter. Certain provisions of the Rules, to wit, Rules 60, 66, 73, 78, 79 and 88 are also pressed into service to satisfy us that a revenue officer like the Sub -Deputy Collector is intimately connected with the survey of the land, and ay such he has to be regarded as a survey officer.

(3.) AS in the present proceeding we are concerned with an action of the Sub -Deputy Collector taken by him during 'term of settlement', let it be seen on whom the Act has conferred the power of survey etc, during this term. Section 41 deals with this aspect and states: