D G P MANIPUR Vs. SANAMAHI DEVATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 4.10,95 of the Revenue Tribunal, Manipur passed in Rev. Revision Case No.46/94.

(2.) The facts of the case as stated in the writ petition are that several plots of land including land measuring 2.46 acres under Patta No.98, Dag No.1 in village No.86 Thiyam Leishangkhong were directed to be recorded in the name of the B.D.O, Imphal West-II Wangoi by order dated 23,5.88 in mutation Misc Case No.53/SDC/IW(H) of 1988 passed by the Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal West, Hiyangthang. Thereafter, 2.20 acres out of the said land were allotted by the Government of Manipur in the Revenue Department by order dated 16.1.91 in favour of the petitioner for construction of Wangi Police Station Building in exercise of power under(Section 14(2) (a) or the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reform Act, 1960) and pursuant to the said allotment order, the Police Department took possession of the said land. In the meantime, however, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed Revenue Revision CaseNo,7 of 1989 before the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal and obtained an order dated 14.1.93 to the effect that the said land would continue to be recorded in the name of the Respondent No 1. The Respondent Nos. 6,7 and 8 then filed Revenue Misc Case No, 15/93 before the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal under section 11 (3) or the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reform Act, 1960 claiming that the land was Government waste land and had been allotted to the Director General of Police by the allotment order dated 16.1.91. The Deputy Commissioner, Imphal passed orders on 5.9.94 in the said Misc case stating that it was a fit case for review of the order dated 14,1,93 and that the name of BDO, Imphal West-II, Wangoi Block in the record of right of the land should remain intact without any correction and alteration. Against the said order dated 5,9.94, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed Revenue Revision Case No. 46/94 before the Revenue Tribunal, Manipur. By order dated 4.10,95 the Revenue Tribunal allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 5.9.94 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal in Revenue Misc. Case No.15/93 and further directed that the name of the Respondent No.2 be recorded as Sbebait of the Respondent No.l in the record of right in respect of the aforesaid land. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed this Civil Rule challenging the aforesaid order dated 4.10.95 of the Revenue Tribunal.

(3.) At the hearing, Mr. N.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the aforesaid land in dispute had been offered by the local leaders and other interested persons of the area for construction of Govt. buildings and did not belong to the Respondent No.l. He further submitted that since there was a dispute between the parties as to whether the land belongs to the Government or belongs to the Respondent No.l the dispute can only be adjudicated under Section 11(3) of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reform Act, 1960(for short the Act). Mr.N.K.Singh submitted that it was the Deputy Commissioner who had the jurisdiction under the said Section 11(3) of the Act to decide such a dispute relating to any property or right over any property against the Government or on behalf of the Government and the decision of the Deputy Commissioner on such a dispute was final. It is for this reason that the Respondent Nos. 6,7 and 8 filed application under Section 11(3) of the Act claiming that the land was a Govt. waste land and on such application the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal passed the order dated 5.9.94 in Revenue Misc. Case No.15/93. He further submitted that the Revenue Tribunal committed a grave errot of law by setting aside the said order dated 5.9.94 of the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal in Revenue Misc. Case No.15/93.