Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 42 (GAU)

Singtaileng Jajo @ Aleng Jajo v. State of Manipur

2014-01-16

N.KOTISWAR SINGH

body2014
N. Kotiswar Singh, J. Heard Mr. R.K. Umakanta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard also Kh. Nobin, learned Addl. Advocate General, Manipur for the State respondents as well as Mr. N. Jotendro, learned counsel for the respondents No. 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 13. Heard also Mr. K. Roshan, learned counsel for the respondents No. 8 and 10. In the present case, the petitioner claiming to be the hereditary Headman of Island Tangkhul Village has challenged the notification dated 24.5.2012 (Annexure-A/7) issued by the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Hills East, Saikul calling for objection to the purported election of Village Authority members of Island Tangkhul Village and also the order dated 6.9.2012 (Annexure-A/9) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Hills East, Saikul whereby one Shri Ramnganing Jajo, respondent No. 6 has been recognised as the new Headman/Khullakpa of Island Tangkhul Village on several grounds, inter-alia, that the said notification and order were issued by the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Hills East, Saikul without complying with the provisions of law as well as that the petitioner is the hereditary Headman by virtue of which he cannot be replaced by any other Headman during his lifetime. 2. In the said impugned notification dated 24.5.2012 (Annexure-A/7) issued by the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Hills East, Saikul, it has been stated that present private respondents numbering 9 (nine) had been elected as members of the Village Authority of Island Tangkhul Village as per proceeding of the village Annual House sitting held on 25.4.2012 and objections were called from the public to be submitted within 20 (twenty) days thereof. Purportedly taking actions pursuant to the said notification, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Hills East, Saikul issued the impugned order on 6.9.2012 whereby the respondent No. 6 was recognised as the new Headman/Khullakpa of the Island Tangkhul Village. Purportedly taking actions pursuant to the said notification, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Hills East, Saikul issued the impugned order on 6.9.2012 whereby the respondent No. 6 was recognised as the new Headman/Khullakpa of the Island Tangkhul Village. In the said order dated 6.9.2012 (Annexure-A/9), it has been stated that the SDO had personally visited the Island Tangkhul Village along with other officials and ascertained that the respondent No. 6 had been elected as a Headman by majority of the villagers on 26.4.2012 for a term of 5 years in place of the petitioner after notice was issued calling for objection (s) which was published on 29.5.2012 in the local paper, "The Sangai Express" and as no objections/complaints had been received within the stipulated time and as per recommendation of the Circle MLA and other Chief and Secretary of neighbouring villages, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Hills East, Saikul, recognised the said respondent No. 6 as the Headman of Island Tangkhul Village. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no such election was held on 25.4.2012 as mentioned in the notification dated 24.5.2012. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Hills East, Saikul, in his order dated 6.9.2012 mentioned that the meeting was held on 26.4.2012 which is not consistent with the date mentioned in the notification dated 24.5.2012 which shows that no such meeting was held in the village and it was merely a concocted story. According to the petitioner, since the petitioner was the hereditary Headman, no election could have been held for election of a new Headman during his lifetime and accordingly, submits that said alleged meeting even if held on 25.4.2012 is without any authority. It has been also submitted that the petitioner had submitted an objection pursuant to the said notification dated 24.5.2012 to the Deputy Collector, Sadar Hills, East Saikul on 1.6.2012 (Annexure-A/8). The said written objection, however, was never considered by the authorities. Therefore, it is incorrect to say, as mentioned in the impugned order dated 6.9.2012 (Annexure-A/9) that no objection had been received within the stipulated time and on that ground alone, the said order dated 6.9.2012 is liable to be set aside. 4. The respondents have filed their respective affidavits-in-opposition. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the private respondents, it has been submitted that the petitioner is not the hereditary Headman. 4. The respondents have filed their respective affidavits-in-opposition. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the private respondents, it has been submitted that the petitioner is not the hereditary Headman. It has been stated that on completion of the term of Headmanship of the petitioner, election was duly held on 25.4.2012 in whose place, the respondent No. 6 was elected as the Headmanship by the villagers. Mr. N. Jotendro, learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Hills East, Saikul had made the necessary enquiry on the spot and verified the election and accordingly, the order dated 6.9.2012 does not suffer from any irregularity and as such, this Court may not interfere with the said order dated 6.9.2012 as well as the notification dated 24.5.2012. 5. Mr. Kh. Nobin, learned Addl. Advocate General has produced the relevant records of the case and has submitted that in the present writ petition, two issues are involved. Firstly, regarding title of the Headmanship and another, regarding the constitution of the Village Authority of Island Tangkhul Village. According to him, as far as the constitution of the Village Authority is concerned, there cannot be any dispute from any of the parties that as the term of Village Authority having expired, it needs to be reconstituted by holding a fresh election. However, as regards the Headmanship, if there is any dispute among the parties, the matter could be sorted out at the appropriate forum or before the civil Court of competent jurisdiction and it may not be appropriate for this Court to make any finding as regards the Headmanship of the Island Tangkhul Village because of the serious nature of dispute which has been raised by the rival parties. The learned Addl. Advocate General, however, has fairly submitted that from the records, it seems that the appropriate procedures had not been followed for the reconstitution of the members of Village Authority in terms of the relevant provisions of law and as such, submits that authorities may be directed to take fresh appropriate steps and actions for reconstitution of the members of the Village Authority of the Island Tangkhul Village. 6. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the issue in the present petition pertains essentially to the claim of Headmanship by the petitioner which is seriously objected to by the respondent No. 6 in as much as the parties have no objection to a fresh election of the members of the Village Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has claimed Headmanship of the Island Tangkhul Village on the basis of hereditary right and that it cannot be taken away by anybody else and cannot be replaced by any elected Headmanship, as has been sought to be done in the present case and as such, submits that any action taken which will affect his right as Headmanship is liable to be interfered with. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to various orders passed by the authorities in this regard to show that the petitioner had been functioning as the Headmanship of the Island Tangkhul Village since 1984 which has not been disputed by any of the parties but has been greatly prejudiced by the present impugned actions and as such, submits that the writ petition may be allowed and he may be allowed to continue as the Headman of the Island Tangkhul Village. Mr. N. Jotendro, however, has seriously contested the claim of the petitioner as the Headman by stating that the petitioner himself had earlier relinquished any right of Headmanship and in fact, he himself had submitted that the Headman can be elected by members of the village and in this connection, has referred to an application submitted by the petitioner himself which is annexed as Annexure-R/4 to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Hills East, Saikul, the respondent No. 3 in which the petitioner had made a statement that the village chief could be elected by the people for a term of 5 years and accordingly, the election was held on 25.4.2012 and the respondent No. 6 was elected as the new Headman of the Island Tangkhul Village and as such, submits there is no irregularity in the actions so taken by the authorities concerned. 7. From the above, what comes out very clearly is that there is a serious dispute between the petitioner and the private respondents regarding the Headmanship of the Island Tangkhul Village. 7. From the above, what comes out very clearly is that there is a serious dispute between the petitioner and the private respondents regarding the Headmanship of the Island Tangkhul Village. Since the dispute essentially relates to a disputed question of fact, this Court is of the view that this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the appropriate forum to decide the disputed question of fact and it is left to the respective parties to take their grievances and get the issue relating to the Headmanship of Island Tangkhul Village settled before the appropriate forum or before the civil Court of competent jurisdiction. As regards the impugned orders which have been challenged in this writ petition, this Court is of the opinion that impugned notification dated 24.5.2012 (Annexure-A/7) as well as the order dated 6.9.2012 (Annexure-A/9) cannot be sustained for the reason that the notification dated 24.5.2012 issued by the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Hills East, Saikul purportedly notifying the elections of the members of the Village Authority was not done in accordance with the prescribed rule. There is nothing in record to show that the election of the members of the Village Authority was initiated and conducted by any of the authorised persons under the Manipur (Village Authority in Hill Areas) Act, 1956 and Rules framed thereunder. The villagers on their own seem to have organised it. Under Rules 2 and 3 of the "The Rules under the Manipur Village Authorities in Hill Areas) Act, 1957", the election for Village Authorities shall be held on such date or dates and on such place or places within the villages as may be announced by the concerned S.D.O. or the S.D.C. the said Rules 2 and 3 read as follows:- 2. The election of Village Authorities shall be held on such date or dates and on such place or places within the village as may be announced by the S.D.O. or if there is no S.D.O., the S.D.C. in charge of the Sub-Division within whose jurisdiction the village in respect of which the election shall be held lies. The election of Village Authorities shall be held on such date or dates and on such place or places within the village as may be announced by the S.D.O. or if there is no S.D.O., the S.D.C. in charge of the Sub-Division within whose jurisdiction the village in respect of which the election shall be held lies. The place or places at which and the dates and hours between which the voters will attend for the purpose of giving their votes shall be notified by means of notice on the Notice Board of the S.D.O. or S.D.C. as the case may be, and also by beat of drum in the village, not less than 3 days before the date of election. 3. The election shall be held by the S.D.O. or if there is no S.D.C., the S.D.C. in charge of Sub-Division, or by such other officer as may be nominated by him in the notice. Where there is no S.D.O. or S.D.C. in charge of a Sub-Division, the function of the S.D.O. or S.D.C. may be performed by the S.D.O. or S.D.C. of the Head Quarters as may be appointed by the Deputy Commissioner. The Officer holding the election under these rules shall be called by the Election Officer. 8. In the present case, as per the records produced by the learned Addl. Advocate General, there is nothing to indicate that the election of Village Authority members was held under the initiation and supervision of S.D.O. or S.D.C. as the case may be and as such the said election cannot be said to be valid. The contention of the learned Addl. Advocate General that the procedures do not seem to have been followed while holding the election of Village Authority members has not been seriously disputed by the parties at the time hearing. Accordingly, this Court would have no hesitation to hold that the purported election held on 25.4.2012 or 26.4.2012 as the case may be for electing members of the Village Authority of Island Tangkhul Village cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside, not having been conducted in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, this Court would have no hesitation to hold that the purported election held on 25.4.2012 or 26.4.2012 as the case may be for electing members of the Village Authority of Island Tangkhul Village cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside, not having been conducted in accordance with law. 9. Coming to the next impugned order dated 6.9.2012 (Annexure-A/9), even though the said order had mentioned that inspite of calling for objection to the election held by issuing the notification on 24.5.2012, no objection had been received, it cannot be said to be correct in view of the fact that the petitioner himself had submitted objection on 1.6.2012 (Annexure-A/8) which was not considered by the authorities. Therefore, on that ground only, the said order dated 6.9.2012 is liable to be interfered with. In any event, the election of members of Village Authority have been found to be illegal since it was not held as per rules, the consequential actions taken cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned notification dated 24.5.2012 (Annexure-A/7) issued by the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Hills East, Saikul as well as the impugned order dated 6.9.2012(Annexure-A/9) issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Hills East, Saikul are set aside. In view of the admitted position by the parties that term of the Village Authority had already expired and there is a need to reconstitute the same, the State respondents are directed to take necessary actions in accordance with law for reconstitution of the Village Authority of the Island Tangkhul Village as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from today. However, as regards the issue of Headmanship, which is the bone of contention between the petitioner and the respondent No. 6 and other private respondents, this Court is of the view that this issue may be agitated by the interested parties before the appropriate forum or before any civil Court of competent jurisdiction to decide the title of Headmanship of the Island Tangkhul Village. Mr. N. Jotendro, however, has submitted that the petitioner may not be allowed to remain as the Headman of Island Tangkhul Village having been already replaced by the respondent No. 6 and as such, his continuance as Headman will cause serious prejudice to the management of the Village Authority. Mr. N. Jotendro, however, has submitted that the petitioner may not be allowed to remain as the Headman of Island Tangkhul Village having been already replaced by the respondent No. 6 and as such, his continuance as Headman will cause serious prejudice to the management of the Village Authority. However, this Court is not making any observation as regards the aforesaid contention in view of the fact that the petitioner has also raised equally strong submission that the petitioner has been serving as Headman of the Island Tangkhul Village since 1984 till date and the impugned notification dated 24.5.2012 (Annexure-A/7) and the order dated 6.9.2012 (Annexure-A/9) had been quashed on the basis of which the Respondent No. 6 laid claim to Headmanship of the village. Accordingly, this Court is refraining from making any observation as regards the title of the Headmanship of Island Tangkhul Village as claimed by the Respondent No. 6. However, it would be the responsibility of the authorities to take any action as it deem fit in accordance with law for maintaining law and order in the village, if the situation so arises. With the above observation and direction, the present petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. The records requisitioned be returned immediately. _