JUDGMENT N. Kotiswar Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Monomala Devi, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents and also Ms. Gitanjali, learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 to 7. Also heard Mr. A. Arunkumar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the notification dated 11.11.2005 by which one Shri V.S. Ngatangmi, the respondent No. 3 has been recognised as the Headman of Hatha village which is bounded on the north by Hundung village, on the south by Lambui village, on the east by Shangshak village and on the west by Tashar village. The petitioners also have challenged the order dated 30.11.2005 by which the Deputy Commissioner, Ukhrul notified the approval granted by the State Government to the recognition of Hatha village as a full fledged Hill House Tax Paying village of Ukhrul district pursuant to the aforesaid notification dated 11.11.2005, after calling for objections from interested parties on 7.10.2004. 3. Several grounds have been raised in challenging the said notifications, the prime ground being that, the notifications were issued without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners even though the petitioners are the residents of Hatha village as a part of Nungshang Village. According to the petitioners, though the State respondents had purportedly issued the notice dated 7.10.2004 which was supposed to have been published in the local Manipur vernacular daily called "Yaikairol", claiming objections from the interested persons to the proposed recognition of Hatha village as a full fledged Government Hill House Tax Paying Village within 15 days, the petitioners were not aware of such notice as the said local newspaper "Yaikairol" is not circulated at all in the Ukhrul District. Apart from lack of circulation and as such, lack of knowledge of such publication in the newspaper, the notice does not indicate as to the particulars of the proposed village, more particularly, the boundaries of the said Hatha village which would deprive any interested person from making any effective representation. Therefore, it has been submitted that the said notice also suffers from the fatal defect of non-disclosure of the detail particulars of the village which is proposed to be recognised by the State Government. 4. Mr. Therefore, it has been submitted that the said notice also suffers from the fatal defect of non-disclosure of the detail particulars of the village which is proposed to be recognised by the State Government. 4. Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the residents of Nungshang Village of which Hatha village is a part, which is clearly evident from the judgment dated 22.4.1976 passed by the Court of Executive Magistrate of Ukhrul in connection with FIR Case No. 1 of 1975 u/s. 107/116(3) Cr.P.C. in which the learned Executive Magistrate, Ukhrul passed an order u/s. 117 restraining certain parties in the proceeding. In the said judgment and order dated 22.4.1976, it is clearly mentioned in the second paragraph that there is a plot of land known as "Hatha" measuring about 415 acres located at Nungshang Village. The aforesaid fact that the land "Hatha" is located in Nungshang Village is also reflected in the order passed by the appellate Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Manipur dated 31.8.1976 in Cril. Appeal Case No. 16(2)/76/19(3) of 1976. These, according to the petitioners, sufficiently indicate that Hatha village is a part of Nungshang Village and the correctness of the aforesaid judgments had not been denied by the respondents. Therefore, it would clearly indicate that Hatha village is a part of the Nungshang Village and as such, the petitioners are vitally interested in any matter relating to the affairs of the Hatha village including the proposal of the State Government to grant recognition to it as a separate village. Accordingly, it has been submitted that since the petitioners have been denied an opportunity to submit an effective representation against the proposed recognition granted by the State Government, the notification dated 11.11.2005 recognising establishment of Hatha village as a full fledged Hill House Tax Paying Village and the subsequent approval granted by the State Government vide order dated 30.11.2005 are vitiated and are liable to be set aside. 5. The State respondents, by filing the affidavit-in-opposition, have denied that Hatha village is a part of the Nungshang Village. It has been also denied in their affidavit-in-opposition that no document or legally valid document has been relied upon by the petitioners to show that Hatha village is a part of Nungshang Village which belongs to the petitioners. 5. The State respondents, by filing the affidavit-in-opposition, have denied that Hatha village is a part of the Nungshang Village. It has been also denied in their affidavit-in-opposition that no document or legally valid document has been relied upon by the petitioners to show that Hatha village is a part of Nungshang Village which belongs to the petitioners. It has been also submitted that the notice calling objections from the interested parties as published in the "Yaikairol" paper had been duly published, to which, several villagers submitted their representations/objections which were duly considered by the authorities and accordingly, the impugned notification and order were issued. 6. Mr. Arunkumar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, has also objected to the writ petition contending that Hatha village was never a part of the Nungshang Village and it had been in existence separately, independently of the village of the petitioners and the same has been given recognition by the State authorities after complying with the relevant rules and regulations and also after calling for objections from the interested parties and if the petitioners had not submitted any objections to the same, the notification cannot be interfered only on that ground. Mr. Arunkumar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 also has submitted that due enquiry was held by the concerned Sub-Division Officer, Ukhrul before granting recognition to the Hatha village as evident from the enquiry report submitted by the SDO, Ukhrul to the D.C., Ukhrul on 24th September, 2004 after making a spot enquiry. Further, it has been also submitted that the claim of the petitioners that Hatha village is a part of the Nungshang Village is a disputed question of fact and as such, the petitioners could not be allowed to base their case on a disputed fact. The petitioners themselves had not been able to establish their title over the Hatha village on legally valid document and as such, they have no locus standi to challenge these notifications, though they would be at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court if aggrieved by these notifications. 7. Ms. Gitanjali, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. The petitioners themselves had not been able to establish their title over the Hatha village on legally valid document and as such, they have no locus standi to challenge these notifications, though they would be at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court if aggrieved by these notifications. 7. Ms. Gitanjali, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 7, which are neighbouring villages of Hatha village, has, submitted that they were also not aware of any such objections being called in terms of the notice dated 7.10.2004 which was alleged to have been published in a local daily, and accordingly, they did not also submit any objections or claims pursuant to the said notifications/notices which were said to have been issued by the authorities. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records. This matter relating to the recognition of village obviously involves disputed questions of facts and this Court normally would not entertain such a writ petition involving disputed questions of facts as the parties would be at liberty to establish their respective title/claim over the disputed village before an appropriate forum or civil Court. However, what has been also noticed is that the recognition of Hatha village by notification dated 11.11.2005 and the approval granted as mentioned in order dated 30.11.2005 was preceded by certain exercise involving inviting objections/claims from neighbouring villages. According to the State respondents, such objections were invited in terms of the notice dated 7.10.2004 which was published in the local newspaper called "Yaikairol" for consecutive three days. Though the State respondents and the private respondent No. 3 have claimed that the said "Yaikairol" newspaper though published in Imphal, is widely also circulated in the Ukhrul district, the same has been vehemently denied by the petitioners as well as by the respondent Nos. 4 to 7. It has been also the case of the State respondents as well as the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 that the said notice was affixed in the office premise of the Deputy Commissioner, Ukhrul District and as such, it cannot be said that the petitioner or the private respondent Nos. 4 to 7 had no knowledge of such notice inviting objections/claims. 4 to 7 that the said notice was affixed in the office premise of the Deputy Commissioner, Ukhrul District and as such, it cannot be said that the petitioner or the private respondent Nos. 4 to 7 had no knowledge of such notice inviting objections/claims. Even if such contention of the State respondents is accepted, yet, there is another aspect of the said notice which has been highlighted by the petitioners i.e. as regards the particulars of the village. Even assuming that the said notice was circulated and was within the knowledge of the petitioners, the fact remains that the said notice did not indicate the boundaries of the proposed village. If any notice is issued for the purpose of recognition of a village, it goes without saying that such notice ought to include particulars of the boundaries of the village as any objection/claim could not be effectively submitted without these particulars. The objections/claims could not have been submitted on mere assumptions or surmises of the boundaries. Objections would relate to the particulars given in the notice. Therefore, if the notice does not include or contain the particulars, such notice cannot be said to be an effective notice for the purpose of raising objections. The said impugned notice dated 7.10.2004 is reproduced hereinbelow:- "NOTICE Ukhrul, the 7th October, 2004 No. 10/227/DC-UKL/Rev-91: It is for information of the general public that Shri V.R. Ngatangni, Headman, Hatha village, Ukhrul Sub-Division has applied an application for recognition of Hatha village as a Government Hill House tax Paying Village. Take notice that if there be any claims/objections by interested persons(s) to the proposed recognition of Hatha village as a Government Hill House Tax Paying Village, the same may be filed to the undersigned within 15(fifteen) days from the date of issued of this notice. In the event of the claim/objection forthcoming within the said 15(fifteen) das from the date of issue of this notice, it will be presumed that there is no objection/claim to the proposed recognition and further action will be proceed without further notice. (Y. Jugindro Singh) Deputy Commissioner, Ukhrul." 9. In the event of the claim/objection forthcoming within the said 15(fifteen) das from the date of issue of this notice, it will be presumed that there is no objection/claim to the proposed recognition and further action will be proceed without further notice. (Y. Jugindro Singh) Deputy Commissioner, Ukhrul." 9. The aforesaid notice shows that apart from the fact that the Government is proposing to recognise the said Hatha village as a full fledged Hill House Tax Paying Village, nothing is mentioned about the boundaries, thus, making it an incomplete notice resulting in denial of information of particular materials for giving an effective objection. In this regard, Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel for the petitioners also referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench rendered on 03.9.2003 in W.P. (C) No. 1240 of 2003 in which the Hon'ble High Court had interfered with the process for recognition of village on the ground that notice inviting objections for constitution of the village did not contain the particulars of the boundary of the village. Therefore, this Court finds substance in the submission made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the notice being defective, could not have been acted upon for the purpose of grant of recognition as no effective representation/objections/claims could have been made in absence of detail particulars as regards the boundaries. The petitioners might not have raised any objection if any such proposed village does not affect the existing boundaries of the petitioners' village. The fact that though the claim of the petitioners that Hatha village is a part of Nungshang Village has been denied by the official respondents as well as the respondent No. 3 and the judgment relied by the petitioners cannot be said to endow any valid title of ownership of the Hatha village as claimed by the petitioners, nevertheless, it cannot be brushed aside totally as irrelevant as far as the plea of the petitioners that Hatha village is a part of the Nungshang Village is concerned. As to whether Hatha village is a part of Nungshang Village as claimed by the petitioner or is not part of Nungshang Village but a separate entity as contended by the respondent No. 3, has to be decided by the appropriate authority or civil Court on which this Court does not wish to make any observation as this decision is confined only to the issue whether the notice inviting objections dated 7.10.2004 was valid or not, which this Court holds to be not a valid one. Once the said notice is held by this Court as not valid, obviously the consequential effects cannot be ignored which would render any consequential actions based on such notice invalid including the notification dated 11.11.2005 as well as the approval order dated 30.11.2005. 10. Mr. Arunkumar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has submitted that Hatha village has been in existence and has been a recipient of beneficial schemes of the Government which is not denied by the petitioners. Be that as it may, all these aspects can be considered by the appropriate forum or civil Court while deciding as to whether Hatha village is a part of Nungshang Village or independent of Nungshang Village as mentioned above. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed by interfering with the notification dated 11.11.2005 as well as the approval order dated 30.11.2005 as the impugned notice dated 7.10.2004 has been held to be invalid. Accordingly, the official authorities, more particularly, the respondent No. 2, is directed to issue a fresh notice inviting objections in connection with recognition of the Hatha village as a full fledged Hill House Tax Paying Village and reconsider giving recognition to it as a separate full fledged Hill House Tax paying village after considering the objections/claims so received. However, it is also provided that since any other person except the petitioners and the private respondent Nos. 4 to 7 have not come forward making any grievance about the notice, this notice inviting claims/objections will be confined only to the petitioners and the private respondent Nos. 4 to 7 for which the respondent No. 2 shall issue a fresh notice within a period of 2(two) months indicating the boundaries of the proposed village Hatha as mentioned in the notification dated 11.11.2005 to them only so that the petitioners and the private respondent Nos. 4 to 7 for which the respondent No. 2 shall issue a fresh notice within a period of 2(two) months indicating the boundaries of the proposed village Hatha as mentioned in the notification dated 11.11.2005 to them only so that the petitioners and the private respondent Nos. 4 to 7 can submit their objections/representations within a period of one month of receipt of such notice which will be considered/decided by the competent authority within a period of two months thereafter. The petitioners and the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 will be at liberty to file objections to such notification within the time as may be fixed by the notice. The authorities thereafter will pass fresh order as regards recognition of Hatha village, Ukhrul Sub-Division, Ukhrul District as a separate full fledged Hill House Tax paying village and it is also provided that till such a fresh notification is issued, as regards the recognition of Hatha village as a full fledged Government Hill House Tax Paying Village, the impugned notification dated 11.11.2005 and the approval dated 30.11.2005 shall remain suspended which will be subject to the fresh notification/order that may be passed by the authority.