Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 89 (MAN)

Manoharmayum Bimol Sharma v. State of Manipur

2014-07-30

LAXMI KANTA MOHAPATRA

body2014
JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, CJ. 1. Subject matter of challenge in the writ petition is the notice issued in Annexure A/17 by SDO, Lamphel, Imphal West to the petitioner on 30th December, 2013 directing him to vacate the portion of disputed land and structures standing thereon by 9th January, 2014. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner along with two others had filed Original Suit No. 39/86/35/86/35/87/53/90/3 of 2003 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) No. II, Manipur East for declaration of title and consequential relief. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties in the suit, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) No. II, Manipur East framed eight issues out of which three are relevant. The first issue was as to whether, the plaintiffs have acquired title by way of adverse possession or not. The second relevant issue was as to whether the order dated 10.9.1985 passed by the Court of Forest Settlement Officer in Objection case No. 61/1967 shall be binding on the parties. The third relevant issue was as to whether the Govt. of Manipur allotted 80 (eighty) hectares of land at Langol Hill vide Govt. of Manipur Secretariat, Forest Department No. 55/4/84-For dated 29.8.1985 and whether such allotment includes the suit land. 3. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence produced before the Court, learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) No. II, Manipur East came to a categorical finding that plaintiffs and villagers of Laimanai village have not perfected title by way of adverse possession as they could prove their possession only from 6.11.1985. The Court further found that declaration of right and title of the plaintiffs and other villagers by order dated 10.9.1985 passed by the Forest Settlement Officer in the Objection case is not binding on the defendants as the said officer had no jurisdiction to declare right and title. So far as the 3rd relevant issue as stated earlier is concerned, learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) No. II, Manipur East found that 80 hectares of land allotted by the Government of Manipur does not include the suit properties. Having held that the plaintiffs had no title over the property but were in possession of the same since 1985, the Court disposed of the suit by passing a decree restraining the defendants therein from taking any step to deposes or evict the plaintiffs except in accordance with law. Having held that the plaintiffs had no title over the property but were in possession of the same since 1985, the Court disposed of the suit by passing a decree restraining the defendants therein from taking any step to deposes or evict the plaintiffs except in accordance with law. The above decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) No. II, Manipur East in the suit was challenged in an appeal before the learned District Judge, Manipur West, Imphal by the defendants (Present respondents) in RFA No. 3 of 2013. The Appellate court confirmed all the findings of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) No. II, Manipur East but the modified the decree restraining the defendants (present respondents) from interfering from the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over Schedule 'B' and 'C' land and protected their possession until evicted in due process of law. However, the defendant No. 1 was directed to remove any kucha structure constructed inside the suit land described in Schedule 'B' and 'C' within a period of 3 (three) months. Relevant portion of the judgment of the Appellate Court is quoted below:- .....In the result, it is hereby ordered that the appellants/defendants are restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the respondents/plaintiffs of the suit land in Schedule 'B' and 'C' and possession of the respondents/plaintiffs over the above mentioned lands be protected until they are evicted in due process of law. The appellant/defendant No. 1 is directed to remove any kucha structure constructed inside the suit land described in Schedule 'B' and 'C' within a period of 3 (three) months. 4. In pursuance of the above order, it appears that notice was issued in Eviction Case No. 5 of 2013 to vacate the land and remove structures standing therein failing which eviction would be carried out. This notice dated 30th December, 2013 in Annexure A/17 is the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. 5. Plaintiff No. 1(b) is the petitioner before this Court. Mr. This notice dated 30th December, 2013 in Annexure A/17 is the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. 5. Plaintiff No. 1(b) is the petitioner before this Court. Mr. Bimol Sharma, the petitioner appeared in person and referring to the decree passed by the Appellate Court submitted that the Appellate Court restrained the present respondents who were defendants in the suit from interfering from peaceful possession of the petitioner and other plaintiffs in respect of Schedule 'B' and 'C' of the suit properties and it was further decreed that their possession be protected unless they are evicted in due process of law. The further decree passed by the Appellate Court was a direction to the defendant No. 1 to remove any kucha structure constructed inside the suit land described in Schedule 'B' and 'C' within a period of 3 (three) months. Further contention of the petitioner was that though such direction was issued for removal of kucha structures inside the suit land, a notice was issued not only for eviction from the said land but also for removal of the structure standing therein. Lengthy arguments were advanced by the petitioner on the question of his title and possession over the said suit property and lengthy arguments were also advanced by the state respondents on the issue of title and possession. Since a suit was filed by the petitioner and 3 others for declaration of title over the suit land described in Schedule 'B' and 'C' of the plaint and the Trial Court categorically found that the plaintiffs could not prove their title by way of adverse possession which was confirmed in Appeal, there is no further scope to argue on the question of title as the decree passed by the Appellate Court has attained finality. As is evident from the decree passed by the Appellate Court, possession of the petitioner and 3 other plaintiffs in the suit had been protected and a decree was passed to the effect that they shall not be evicted except in due process of law. However, so far as the kucha structure standing on the disputed land are concerned, they were directed to be removed. 6. The proceeding under Manipur Public Premises (Eviction of Un-authorised Occupants) Act, 1978 had already been initiated against the petitioner in Eviction Case No. 5 of 2013. However, so far as the kucha structure standing on the disputed land are concerned, they were directed to be removed. 6. The proceeding under Manipur Public Premises (Eviction of Un-authorised Occupants) Act, 1978 had already been initiated against the petitioner in Eviction Case No. 5 of 2013. The learned A.G. produced the record of the said Eviction Case for perusal of the Court. From the order sheet, it appears that on 20th December, 2013, SDC/IW(C) was directed to cause a summary inquiry as to whether, the present petitioner was still physically in occupation of the land and submit a report by 28th December, 2013. On 28th December, 2013, another order was passed after receipt of the Inquiry Report directing that notice be issued to the petitioner under Sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act to vacate the land on or before 9th January, 2014. In pursuance of the said order notice in Annexure A/17 dated 30th December, 2013 impugned in the writ petition was issued. The petitioner, referring to Section 3 of the Act, submitted that the procedure prescribed therein was not followed by the Competent Authority. For convenience, Section 3 of the said Act is quoted below:- 3. (1) If the competent authority, after making such inquiry as it deems fit, is satisfied that any public premises are in unauthorized occupation, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, make an order of eviction directing that the public premises shall- (i) in the case of buildings, within ten days from the date of the proclamation referred to in clause(b) of sub-section (2) and (ii) in other cases, within three days from the date of such proclamation, be vacated by all persons who may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof. (2) (a) The competent authority shall, before the date of the proclamation referred to in clause (c), cause of a copy of the order made by it under sub-section (1) to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises. (b) (i) An officer specially authorised by the competent in this behalf shall cause the order made under sub-section (1) to be proclaimed by beat of drum or tom-tom in or near the locality concerned and thereupon such order shall be deemed to have been duly served on all persons concerned. (b) (i) An officer specially authorised by the competent in this behalf shall cause the order made under sub-section (1) to be proclaimed by beat of drum or tom-tom in or near the locality concerned and thereupon such order shall be deemed to have been duly served on all persons concerned. (ii) The officer specially authorised by the competent authority under sub-section (1) shall record a certificate stating the date of the proclamation and such certificate shall be conclusive proof of the fact and the date of such proclamation. 7. The requirements of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 do not appear to have been complied with and the learned A.G., Mr. Th. Ibohal also could not place anything from the record which could show compliance of the said provision. 8. The petitioner had cited some decisions of the Apex Court in relation to the meaning of "due process of law". I have not referred to these decisions in view of above observation that statutory provisions contained in Section 3 of the Act and Rule 3 of the Rules, had not been complied with. 9. The Manipur Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rules, 1979 came into force from 14th May, 1979. Rule 3 provides that competent authority shall cause a notice to be published specifying the date or dates on which it proposes to conduct inquiry. It may make such inspection or cause such inspection to be made by an officer specially authorised by it, of the public premises for the purpose of satisfying itself that the public premises are in authorised occupation. This part of the procedure prescribed in the Rule has also not been complied with. However, there is no dispute that despite non-compliance of the above procedure prescribed in the Act and Rules, the Eviction has already been undertaken and structures have already been removed. Since the order in Annexure A/17 has already been carried out, the only other remedy available to the petitioner is to seek for compensation because of non-compliance of the mandatory provision prescribed in the Act and Rules stated above. The relief claimed in the writ petition has become practically infructuous. Order in Annexure A/17 having been carried out in the meantime, writ petition is disposed of with the above observation and direction.