Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 25 (GAU)

Paokhothang Khongsai v. State of Manipur and Ors.

2013-01-10

S.R.SEN

body2013
1. Heard learned State counsel Mr. R.S. Reisang. The instant writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 30.4.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati District, Manipur. Whereby ownership land certificate initially issued by the letter No. SDO(S-G)/3/5/(DEM)/99 dated 22.7.2008 has been cancelled on the ground that the Sub-Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to issue such certificate. The land allotted in question is a Government khash land and falls under the jurisdiction of Manipur West District. Petitioner being aggrieved by the same impugned order approached this court by way of instant writ petition. I have seen and gone through the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Manipur West District, Manipur. Learned State counsel Mr. R.S. Reisang submits that the land ownership certificate issued by the letter dated 22.7.2008 referred above was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer without any jurisdiction and as such the certificate was illegal. So, Deputy Commissioner, Senapati has rightly cancelled the allotment. Learned counsel further submits that the land before allotment to the petitioner actually been allotted to Assam Rifles by the competent authority from that point of view also the allotment order issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer Senapati has no stand and submits that petition may be dismissed. None appeared for and on behalf of the petitioner till passing this order. I have perused the Annexure D/4 wherein it appears that Commissioner, Revenue to the Government of Manipur in exercise of the power conferred under section 14 sub-section (2) of MLR and LR Act., 1960 read with rule 18 of Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, the Governor of Manipur was pleased to allow the land measuring 23.21 acres to Defence Department, Government of India and said order was passed on 5.4.1993, whereas impugned order dated 30.4.2011 disclosed that the Sub-Divisional Officer has issued certificate to the petitioner on 22.7.2008. Section 14 of MLR and LR Act, 1960 is reproduced hereunder : "14. Allotment of land. - (1) The Deputy Commissioner may allot land belonging to the Government for agricultural purposes or for construction of dwelling houses, in accordance with such rules as may be made in this behalf under this Act; and such rules may provided for allotment of land to persons evicted under section 15. Allotment of land. - (1) The Deputy Commissioner may allot land belonging to the Government for agricultural purposes or for construction of dwelling houses, in accordance with such rules as may be made in this behalf under this Act; and such rules may provided for allotment of land to persons evicted under section 15. (2) The State Government shall have power - (a) to allot any such land for the purpose of an industry or for any purpose of public utility on such conditions as may be prescribed, or (b) to entrust the management of any such land or any rights therein to the Gram Panchayat of the village established under any law for the time being in force." On bare perusal of provision of section 14 as quoted above, it appears and understood that it is only the Deputy Commissioner or the State Government who has power to allot land not by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The land ownership certificate was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, who has no jurisdiction at all. Therefore, I do not find anything wrong with the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner whereby ownership certificate is cancelled in accordance with law. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this instant writ petition or to interfere with the impugned order dated 30.4.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati District. Hence dismissed and disposed of. Before I part with the case record, I mention here that High Court Bar Association (Imphal Bench) on strike for more than two months. Learned members of the Bar are the Officers of the court and they are respectable people of the society. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India and Another" AIR 2003 SC 739 was pleased to observe that - "45. Lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even on a token strike. The protest, if any is required, can only be by giving press statements, TV interviews carrying out of court premises banners and/or placards, wearing black or white or any colour arm bands, peaceful protest marches outside and away from court premises, going on dharnas or relay facts, etc. It is held that lawyers holding Vakalats on behalf of their clients cannot not attend courts in pursuance to a call for strike or boycott. It is held that lawyers holding Vakalats on behalf of their clients cannot not attend courts in pursuance to a call for strike or boycott. All lawyers must bodily refuse to abide by any call for strike or boycott. No lawyer can be visited with any adverse consequences by the Association or the Council and no threat or coercion of any nature including that of expulsion can be held out. It is held that no Bar Council or Bar Association can permit calling of a meeting for purposes of considering a call for strike or boycott and requisition, if any, for such meeting must be ignored. It is held that only in the rarest of rare cases where the dignity, integrity and independence of the Bar and/or the Bench are at stake, courts may ignore (turn a blind eye) to a protest abstention from work for not more than one day. It is being clarified that it will be for the court to decide whether or not the issue involves dignity or integrity or independence of the Bar and/or the Bench. Therefore in such cases the President of the Bar must first consult the Chief Justice or the District Judge before Advocate decide to absent themselves from court. The decision of the Chief Justice or the District Judge would be final and have to be abided by the Bar. It is held that courts are under no obligation to adjourn matters because lawyers are on strikes. On the contrary, it is the duty of all courts to go on with matters on their boards even in the absence of lawyers. In other words, courts must not be privy to strikes or calls for boycotts. It is held that if a lawyer, holding a Vakalat of a client, abstains from attending court due to a strike call, he shall be personally liable to pay costs which shall be addition to damages which he might have to pay his client for loss suffered by him. 46. It is now hoped that with the above clarifications, there will be no strikes and/or calls for boycott. It is hoped that better sense will prevail and self restraint will be exercised. The petitions stand disposed of accordingly." _____________