ACHOM ANGOU SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Government order dated Imphal, the 23rd January, 1993 bearing No. 21/85/86-R allotting the land measuring 0.014 Acre under plot No.9 Sheet No. 17-Imphal Municipality of the Dag No. 3212 in favour of Sri Laishram Gourachand Singh, the 2nd respondent herein, for shop site purposes subject to keeping road side reserved land as in Annexure A/14 is the subject matter under challenge in this writ petitiion. A prayer has been made by the petitioner in lids writ petition for striking down the provision of Section 14(2) (a) of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act,, 1960 and for declaring it as an unconstitutional.

(2.) The original writ petitioner, Shri Achom Angou Singh alias Angouba Singh (now deceased) represented by his legal heirs/4 sons, reflected in the cause title filed the present writ petition for quashing the impugned order of 23rd January, 1993 as in Annexure A/14 to the writ petition.

(3.) Supporting the case of the writ petitioner, Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, the Id. Sr. Advocate contended inter alia, that the writ petitioner Shri Achom Angou Singh (now deceased) along with and assisted by his sons, had been doing his business in the Khwairamband Bazar (comprising now the Thangal Bazar and Pacona Bazar) in the heart of the industrial area of Imphal Town for the last about 40 years; that the respondent No. 2, Shri Laishram Gourachand Singh is a very wealthy person having acquired several valuable shop-sites within the industrial area of Imphal Town, standing either in his name or in the name of his family members, besides his own residential/homestead land and buildings standing thereon and may agricultural lands, and some of the shop-sites lying in the industrial area of Imphal Town acquired by the respondent No. 2 either in his name or in the name of his family members as highlighted in the documents marked as Annexure -A/1, Annexure-A/2, Annexure A/3 and Annexutre -A/4 to the writ petition; that the respondent No. 3 Smti. Laishram Ongbi Prabhabati Devi who is a government servant employed in the Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Department of the Govt. of Manipur for the last about 10 years is the daughter-in-law of the respondent No. 2, while the respondent No. 4 Shri L. Dipoochand Singh, a minor aged about: 13 years is the grand son of the respondent No. 2 and both of them are living with the respondent No. 2 at the Kaisampat Leimajam Leikai, within the Imphal Municipality in whose favour the said lands had been allotted to them as reflected in the aforesaid documents marked as Annexure-A/1, A/2, A/3 and A/4 respectively. According to Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel, the writ petitioner had challenged the illegal and unconstitutional allotment of the land measuring 0.014 acre under Plot No. 9, Sheet No. 17 of Imphal Municipality of Dag No. 3212" which is hereinafter referred to as disputed land" in favour of the respondent No. 2 under the impugned order /orders of the State Government bearing No. 21/85/86-R dated 23rd January, 1993(Annexure -A/14), which was made in the secrecy of office file and issued behind the back of the writ petitioner. It is also argued by Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel that the disputed land is one of the 14 shop-site plots lying within the road- side of the public road now called Paona Road,which vested in and belonged to the Imphal Municipal Board under Section 62 of the erstwhile Assam Municipal Act, 1956 as extended to the State of Manipur and the writ petitioner has no shop-site and shop-building within the industrial area of Imphal Town except the disputed land and his shop-building standing thereon and as such on his application made during his life time, the Imphal Municipal Board allotted the disputed land (being Plot No.9 out of the 14 counting from the north) for the construction of his shop-building inpursuance of the Board's Resolution No. 4 dated 20th February, 1962 and accordingly, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 3,829:50 as premium for the allotment made to him as required under the related work order and further by virtue of the related order issued by the Imphal Municipality the petitioner has been allowed to construct his shop building over the disputed land vide, office order/memo bearing No. IM/25(H)/ 56-62 dated 14th March, 1962 (Annexure A/5) and the office memo/order No. IM/25(II)/62 dated 14th October, 1963 (Annexure -A/6 to the writ petition) and in consideration of the payment of the said premium, the disputed land with an area of 53' X11 1/2' was allotted to the petitioner on lease by the Imphal Municipal Board for the purpose of running his business in the shop building to be constructed by him at his own cost on the disputed land and the lease agreement dated 26th January, 1964 was executed by and between the Chairman, Imphal Municipal Board and the petitioner as reflected in the document markes as Annexure-A/7 to the writ petition and, that the said lease was initially for a period of 11 months and was renewable on the expiry of the term and, after the execution of the said lease agreement, the petitioner took possession of the disputed land of 26th January. 1964 and constructed a permanent shop building covering the entire disputed land at the huge cost on the condition that the petitioner as an allottee should be the owner of such shop building and that the petitioner assisted by his 4 sons mentioned above has been earring his business as Hindu Joint Family firms such as " PA SA Enterprises" in the shop building constructed by him on the disputed land. It is also urged that the lease of the disputed land was not formally extended by making and executing any further lease agreement but the petitioner has been paying the due rents for the disputed land to the office of the Imphal Municipal Board which has been receiving the same from the petitioner from month to month or from time to time as and when necessary notice or notices was/were given by the office and the said lease is still continuing and / or deemed to be continued still in favour of the petitioner as the name of the petitioner was recorded initially as the lessee of the disputed land in the related records of the Imphal Municipal Board and subsequently, when the disputed land was bifurcated as plot No. 9-A and plot No. 9-B, the former was recorded in favour of the petitioner and by mutual agreement later Plot No. 9-B was recorded in favour of his son Shri Achom Indrajit Singh in the Imphal Municipal Register or Book and that the petitioner has never transferred his lease hold of the disputed land and also his ownership of the shop building constructed by him there on to any other person whomsoever. Mr. A. Nilamami Singh, learned senior counsel went on to contend that on the false allegation and misrepresentation made by the respondent No. 2,3 and 4 some times in July, 1992 about their having become the owners of the lease-hold of the disputed land and the shop building thereon, the Superintendent of Police, Imphal and his subordinate Police officers asked the petitioner and his sons to vacate the disputed land and the shop building thereon in favour of the respondent No. 2 and having no alternative, the petitioner instituted a suit against the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and obtained an order of temporary injunction dated 25th August, 1992 passed in Judicial Misc. Case No. 85 of 1992 arising out of original Suit No. 28 of 1992 restraining the respondent No. 3 and 4 and their agents and privies including the respondent No. 2 (sic) enteriing into the disputed land and the shop-building standing thereon and that when the court of the Additional District Judge/ Manipur East passed a stay order of 12th November, 1992 in Civil Appeal Case No. 17 of 1992 on the appeal preferred by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 against the above mentioned interim order for temporary injunction the petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 27 of 1992 before this Court, in which this Court passed an order on 10th December, 1992 setting aside the stay order of the learned Additional District Judge, Manipur East and that, subsequently the said suit being original Suit No. 28/1992 having been found to have suffered from formal defects, the same was withdrawn on 15th January, 1993 with liberty to file a fresh suit and thereafter on 18th January, 1993 the petitioner instituted original Suit No. 5 of 1993 in the Court of the Munsiff, Imphal and obtained an order for temporary injunctibn dated 18th January, 1993 passed in judicial Misc. Case No. 4/1993 whereby the status quo of the disputed land and shop-building thereon as on the date of filing the application for temporary injunction is to be maintained and the stay order of 18th January, 1993 passed by the Court of Munsiff, Imphal still stands and accordingly the petitioner alongwith his sons has still been retaining actual possession and use occupation and enjoyment of me shop-building standing on the disputed land. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that in the aforesaid original Suit No. 5/1993,tfie respondent Nos. 3 and 4 set up the title of the respondent No. 2 in respect of the shop-building constructed on the disputed land and also alleged an oral transfer of the building by the respondent No. 2 to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 without mentioning the nature, date and consideration for such alleged transfer and also without any allegation of a valid transfer of the shop-building by the petitioner to the respondent No. 2; apart from it, the Govt. of Manipur made allotment of 11 plots, excluding 3 of which the disputed plot is one out of the aforementioned 14 shop-site plots situated in between the Paona Road and the Women's market of Luxmi Bazar to the persons or their privies who were earlier allotted the lease-hold right by the Imphal Municipal Board undgr a related order of 6th June, 1986 of the Secretariat Revenue Department and the said allotment order speaks about the allotment, of a shop-site plot under Dag No. 3212 measuring 0.014 acre was allotted to L. Damayanti Devi, Sushila Devi and Rita Devi who are the daughters of the respondent No. 2 under the aforesaid allotment order as seen in the document marked as Annexure A/11 to the writ petition. According to Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel, the petitioner also filed an application for formal allotment of the disputed land to him to the address of the Director of Settlement and Land Records, Manipur on 8th August, 1991 which was registered as pt. No. 160/DLR -(Pr) dated 8th August, 1991, since the disputed land is under new Survey & Settlement operation by the Settlement Department and the petitioner was informed by the office of the Director of Settlement and land Records that his application would be forwarded to the State Government for consideration but it is not known whether the said application had at all been forwarded to the State Government or not and whether it was at all considered by the State Government and as such the petitioner made another application dated 3rd January, 1992 to the Revenue Minister, Govt. of Manipur for making formal allotment of the disputed land to the petitioner by way of regularising his lease-hold of the disputed land but there was no response from the State Government and it appears that the same has never been considered by the State Government. Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel argued that the respondents have failed to exercise its discretion and power conferred upon it in not considering the representations and applications of the writ petitioner for allotment of the said disputed land. It is also contended by Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel that sometime in June, 1993 the respondent No. 2 sent a copy of his Caveat to the petitioner regarding the allotment order dated 23rd January, 1993 in respect of the disputed land and on a search and enquiry made by the petitioner he obtained on 17th June, 1993 a copy of the impugned allotment order bearingNo.21/85/86-R dated 23 rd January, 1993 of the Secretariat Revenue Department allotting the disputed land to the respondent No. 2 under Section 14 (2) (a) of the M.L.R & L.R.Act, 1960, hereinafter called the Act of 1960, read with Rule 18 of the M.L.R. & L.R. (allotment of land) Rules, 1962 and the strip of land under Dag No.3212, on a part of which the disputed land is situated, lies within 15 metres of the public road named Paona Road in the Imphal Town and is a part and parcel of the road- side of the said public road. According to Mr. A. Nilamani Singh the said strip of land including the disputed land became vested in and belonged to the Imphal Municipal Board under Section 62(1) (a) of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 as extended to Manipur read with Section 59(1) (a) of the Manipur Municipalities Act 1976 and there was never any notification issued by the State Government in official Gazette directing that the said strip of land including the disputed land should cease to be so vested in or to belong to the Imphal Municipal Board and moreover, the impugned allotment order of 23rd January, 1993 as in Annexure-A/14, which was made in the secrecy of the official file and the same is illegal, arbitrary, capricious, improper and unconstitutional. The learned counsel also submitted that the provision of Section 14(2) (a) of the MLR & LR Act 1960 is ultra vires and unconstitutional and that it has conferred unbridled and unguided powers on the State Government to allot land belonging to the Government while laying down any guidelines, criteria and principles to govern such allotment for those-called purpose of "industry" which is taken by the State Government to be wide enough to include; any sort of "business". It is also argued that the respondent No. 2 has been duly and unjustly been allowed by the State Government to steal an undeserved march over the petitioner by having recourse to executive discrimination knowing fully well about the pendency of the Civil Suit instituted by the petitioner and the status quo order of the competent Civil Court thus, making in conspiracy amongst the competent authority and the respondent Nos. 2 and 4 in making allotment of the disputed land to and in favour of the respondent No. 2 and as such the impugned order of allotment is made malafide; in shser abuse of executive power and in utter disregard to the legitimate claim of the petitioner. Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel also submitted that during the pendency of this writ petition, the writ petitioner Shri Achom Angou Singh died on 14th July, 1997 at his residence and accordingly, his 4 sons mentioned above filed an application for their substitution and for proceeding with the writ petition by contending inter alia, that the original writ petitioner and his 4 sons are all Hindus of the Deyabhaga School and during his life-time, he and his said sons had been carrying on their joint family business in the multi-storeyed building constructed on the disputed land mentioned in the writ petition and at present these 4 sons have been carrying on the said business there after his death and on his death, all his rights,title and interest in respect of the disputed land and the building standing thereon have developed to the said 4 sons along with the management and running of their joint family business run in the said building and apart from this the writ petitioner and his 4 sons had made application dated 6th May, 1992 to the Revenue Minister, Govt. of Manipur for allotment of the disputed land to the petitioner and to them (four sons) by way of regularising the allotment thereof by the Imphal Municipal Board to the original writ petitioner.