KHURAIJAM INDRAJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to restore possession of an area of .0365 acres of land under Patta No. 255 covered by CS Dag No. 4420/4491 and an area of .0275 acres of land under Patta No. 255/258 covered by CS Dag No. 4491/4497 to the petitioner and to pay compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for illegal deprivation of his aforesaid private properties and for a further direction on the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.3.50 Lakhs towards cost of the building which the petitioner had erected on the said land.

(2.) The relevant facts as stated in the writ petition are that under merger agreement between the Maharaja of Manipur and the Union of India, the Palace compound remained the sole private property of late Maharaja Budhachandra Singh and on his death his legal heirs including his second son Laxmi Kanta Singh inherited the said Place compound jointly with other legal heirs. On 9.12.92, Maharaja Laxmi Kanta Singh executed a registered deed of gift in favour of his wife Smt. Shanti Devi whereunder he transferred an area of 70ft x 40ft of land out of the Hand under CS Dag No. 4420 comprised in the said place compound. Out of the said land measuring 70ft x 40ft, the petitioner purchased an area of 40ft x 30 ft from Smt. Shanti Devi for a consideration of Rs.1,00,000 by a registered sale deed (Annexure-17 to the writ petition, and thereafter by another registered sale deed dated 3.6.93, the remaining portion of land was purchased by the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.50,000/- from Smt. Shanti Devi. The petitioner, therefore, became the absolute owner of the land under Patta No. 255 covered by CS Dag No. 4420/4491 having an area of .0365 acres and the land under Patta No. 255/258 covered by CS Dag No. 4491/4497 having an area of .0275, acres and was in possession of the said land. The said land is situated adjacent to the Ukhul Road and was an ideal place for development of shopping complex. The petitioner in consultation with the Architect and Engineers prepared a scheme for construction of muJtistoreyed building for using the ground floor tfor shopping complex and the other floors for residence-cum-office purpose. The petitioner completed the foundation work of the said multi-storeyed building but as he did not have necessary funds to complete the multi-storeyed building, after raising the columns and pucca brick walls upto the first floor level, the petitioner put CGI sheet roof on Iron truss on a portion measuring 25ft x 60ft of the ground floor. The total cost for constructing the said portion of the building was worked out at Rs.4,00,000/-. The petitioner thereafter let-out the constructed portion of the building to different businessmen and was earning a monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- from the tenant. The petitioner also spent a sum of Rs.50,000/- for construction of septic tank and water reservoir near the said building. While the petitioner was in peaceful possession of the said properties and was earning income out of it, on 2.3.94, a police team under the command of Superintendent of Police, Imphal District, Manipur came with crane and bulldozer and without any notice to the occupants of the building and the petitioner forcibly dismantled the entire building. The dismantling of the building started at 3 P.M of 2.3.94 and ended at 9 AM of 3.3.94. On demolition of the building, the building materials became useless and some of the materials were taken away by the police team in a police van without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner.

(3.) On the basis of these facts, Mr L.N.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that under Article 300 A of the Constitution, every person has been guaranteed the Constitutional right of no1:being deprived of his properties saved by the authority of law. The petitioner, therefore, could not be deprived of his properties by the respondents except by a procedure laid down by law. But no procedure as laid down by law was followed and no notice was given to the petitioner before the aforesaid properties of the petitioner were demolished by the police team and before the petitioner was evicted from the said properties. According to Mr L.N.K. Singh, the petitioner is entitled to restoration of possession of the said properties as well as compensation from the respondents. He further submitted that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can direct the restoration of possession of the aforesaid properties of the petitioner. In support of his aforesaid submission, Mr L.N.K. Singh relied on the unreported Division Bench Judgment dated 19.9.89 of this Court in Civil Rule No. 172/82/258/83 (Shri M.K.Lakshmikanta Singh-Vs-Shri Iringbam Tompok Singh & Ors). He also cited the decisions of the Supreme Court' reported in AIR 1961 SC 1570 in the case of Shri Bishan Das- Vs-State of Punjab, in AIR 1982 SC 32 in the case of M/s Bishamber Dayal Chandra Mohan- Vs- State of U.P. and in AIR 1986 SC 180 in the case of Olga Tellis & Ors- Vs-Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. He relied on the decisions reported in AIR 1994 SC 2663 in the case of N.Nagendra Rao & Co.-Vs- State of Andhra Pradesh and in AIR 1996 SC 922 in the case of Bodhistawa Gautam- Vs-Subhra Chakraborty for his submission that the Court can also grant compensation to a party whose rights have been affected by another party and argued that this is a fit case in which the Court should direct the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- to the petitioner.