Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 75 (MAN)

Chingangbam Doren @ Dorendro Singh v. Thokchom (O) Rajkumari Romita Devi

2016-06-07

SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

body2016
JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. T. Rajendra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, Mr. A. Peter, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 and Ms. Ch. Sundari, learned G.A. appearing for the respondent No. 3. 2. The petitioners in this case have approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 18.03.2015 passed by the learned Revenue Tribunal, Manipur in Revenue Revision Case No. 101 of 2014, wherein they were objectors/respondents No. 3 and 4. The brief facts and circumstances which led the petitioners to file the present petition are as follows: The principal respondent, in this case, submitted an application before the Sub-Deputy Collector (SDC), Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur praying for mutation of her name in the record of rights of the homestead land under Patta No. 165 covered by C.S. Dag No. 319 (which shall hereafter be referred to as the suit land) claiming that she had inherited the same from her late husband namely, Shri Thokchom Saratkumar Singh. The petition was registered as Mutation Case No. 442 of 2014 by SDC, Porompat, Imphal East. After the same was registered, the 2 (two) petitioners in this case including one, Shri Yumkham Bireshchandra Singh objected the petition of the petitioner (principal respondent). The learned SDC, after hearing all the parties, passed the order dated 03.10.2014 in the said mutation case stating that it would be appropriate to keep the mutation case in abeyance till disposal of the Original Suit No. 33/1967/4/2008/27/2010 or till the proceeding of the same attains finality. Not satisfied with the said order, the petitioner in the mutation case (principal respondent in this case) filed a petition before the learned Revenue Tribunal, Manipur under Section 91 read with Section 81 of the MLR & LR Act, 1960 challenging the legality and propriety of the said order of the SDC, Porompat, Imphal East. The revenue revision case was registered as Revenue Revision Case No. 101 of 2014 and the learned Tribunal, after hearing all the parties, disposed the case with an order passed on 18.03.2015 which is impugned in this case. 3. The revenue revision case was registered as Revenue Revision Case No. 101 of 2014 and the learned Tribunal, after hearing all the parties, disposed the case with an order passed on 18.03.2015 which is impugned in this case. 3. The learned Tribunal allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dated 03.10.2014 of the SDC, Porompat, Imphal East passed in mutation case No. 422/SDC/IE/2014 and also passed the following order: (i) That, the Original Suit No. 33/1967/4/2008/27/2010, since it was pending for restoration, the same cannot be stated to be pending, therefore, that cannot be a reason for keeping the mutation case pending before the learned SDC, Porompat, Imphal East. (ii) That, the objectors/respondents No. 3 and 4 in the mutation case (petitioner in this case) did not produce Jamabandi of the suit land which shows the name of Smt. Th. (O) Leirensana Devi and her daughter namely, Smt. Th. (N) Chingangbam Ibetombi Devi from whom they claimed inheritance of the suit land. Therefore, they did not qualify as interested persons as provided under Section 46 of the MLR & LR Act, 1960. (iii) That, since the name of late Th. Saratkumar Singh, husband of the petitioner in the mutation case was recorded in the Jamabandi of the suit land, on his death the name of his widow Smt. Thangjam (O) RK. Romita Devi (petitioner in the mutation case) should be recorded as pattadar of the suit land. Accordingly, the name of Smt. RK. Romita Devi be mutated in the record of rights of the suit land. 4. The petitioners in this case assailed the impugned order on two grounds: (i) That, the Original Suit No. 33/1967/4/2008/27/2010 of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Imphal Eastin which dispute over the ownership of the suit land was under adjudication between the parties, was actually pending when the learned SDC, Porompat, Imphal East passed the order dated 03.10.2014, but the learned Tribunal despite this fact passed the impugned order dated 18.03.2015. Therefore, the learned Tribunal’s order passed on that basis/assumption is erroneous. Therefore, the learned Tribunal’s order passed on that basis/assumption is erroneous. That, the suit, in the meanwhile, has been heard and disposed on 18.03.2015 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Imphal East and in that the petitioners and co-heirs have been declared owners of the suit land, therefore, the direction of the learned Tribunal given in the impugned order can no longer stay valid in view of this finding of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Imphal East passed in Original Suit No. 33/1967/4/2008/ 27/2010. In support of the case of the petitioner, the learned counsel led me through the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Imphal East (a copy of which is filed and is in the record) wherein it is clearly decreed that the two petitioners including the other legal heirs of the two plaintiffs in the Original Suit are the owners of the suit land. (ii) That, the learned Tribunal exceeded his jurisdiction, in as much as he went to the extent of directing that the name of the principal respondent (revision petitioner in the case) should be entered in the record of rights of the suit land while passing the impugned order. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, mutation is to be effected by competent authority under the MLR & LR Act and Rules after the possession of the land is determined. Therefore, the learned Revenue Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction when such a direction to record name of the petitioner in the mutation case (principal respondent in this case) was given. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Revenue Tribunal, though, has the power as given under Section 95 of MLR & LR Act, 1960 to call for records of any proceeding before any Revenue Officer subordinate to it for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed by such revenue office, he cannot pass such order directing entry of the name of a particular person in the record of rights. Therefore, this Court can interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution to correct such mistake committed by the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel cited decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in AIR 1997 SC 2077 . Therefore, this Court can interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution to correct such mistake committed by the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel cited decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in AIR 1997 SC 2077 . Relevant Para No. 10 reads as follows: “The power of super intendance of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is not confined to administrative super-intendance only but such power includes within its sweep the power of judicial review. The power and duty of the High Court under Article 227 is essentially to ensure that the Courts and Tribunals, inferior to High Court, have done what they were required to do. Law is we settled by various decisions of this Court that the High Court can interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution in case of erroneous assumption or acting beyond its jurisdiction, refusal to exercise jurisdiction, error of law apparent on record as distinguished from a mere mistake of law, arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion, a patent error in procedure, arriving a finding which is perverse or based on no material, or resulting in manifest injustice. As regards, finding of fact of the inferior Court, the High Court should not quash the judgment of the subordinate Court merely on the ground that its finding of fact was erroneous but it will be open to the High Court in exercise of the powers under Article 227 to interfere with the finding of fact if the subordinate Court came to the conclusion without any evidence or upon manifest misreading of evidence there by indulging in improper exercise of jurisdiction or if its conclusions are perverse.” 5. On the other hand, the principal respondent opposed the petition on the following grounds: (i) One of the grounds on which the principal respondent objected the prayer of the petitioners is that this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot exercise jurisdiction to interfere in the impugned order. The learned counsel for the principal respondent drew my attention to several decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, which, according to him, must be kept in mind while exercising the power or jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The decisions as relied upon by the learned counsel are as follows: (a) AIR 1998 Supreme Court 184. The learned counsel for the principal respondent drew my attention to several decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, which, according to him, must be kept in mind while exercising the power or jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The decisions as relied upon by the learned counsel are as follows: (a) AIR 1998 Supreme Court 184. Relevant Para No. 13 reads as follows: “Where two views are possible and the trial Court has taken one view which his a possible and plausible view merely because another view is attractive, the High Court should not interfere and would be in error in interfering with the finding of the Trial Court or interfering under Article 227 of the Constitution over such decision.” (b) AIR 1971 Supreme Court 315. Relevant Para No. 9 reads as follows: “9. Mr. Sanghi in support of his first contention has drawn our attention to the principles laid down in Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commr. Of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam, 1958 SCR 1240 : ( AIR 1958 SC 398 ) Civil and in Rambhau v. Shankar Singh, Civil Appeal No. 35 of 1966, D/-17–3–1966 (SC). It is no doubt true that this Court has held in those decisions that the powers of the High Court under Article 227 are not greater than the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. It has been further laid down that the power of interference under Article 227 was limited to seeing that the tribunals function with in the limits of their authority and that the High Courts cannot sit in appeal against the order of a tribunal in a petition under Article 227. In our opinion, the High Court in this case cannot be considered to have exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. We have already stated that all findings on material facts have been accepted by the High Court. It is only on two material aspects which affect the jurisdiction of the revenue tribunals to grant the necessary relief under the Act that the High Court differed. Those were : (i) the power of the mother on the facts found by the tribunals to grant the lease on behalf of her minor daughter and its legal effect; and (ii) the maintainability of the application of the appellant under Section 39 of the Act. Therefore, we cannot accept the contention of Mr. Those were : (i) the power of the mother on the facts found by the tribunals to grant the lease on behalf of her minor daughter and its legal effect; and (ii) the maintainability of the application of the appellant under Section 39 of the Act. Therefore, we cannot accept the contention of Mr. Sanghi that any error has been committed by the High Court in considering these aspects in proceedings under Article 227.” (c) AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1297 – No power to interfere with findings of fact like a Court of Appeal. Relevant Para No.9 reads as follows: “The Special Civil Application preferred by the appellant was admittedly an application under Article 227 and it is, therefore, material only to consider the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of the High Court under that article. Did the High Court have jurisdiction in an application under Article 227 to disturb the findings of fact reached by the District Court? It is well settled by the decision of this Court in Waryam Singh V. Amarnath, 1954 SCR 565 : ( AIR 1954 SC 215 ) that the: “………………power of super intendance conferred by Article 227 is as pointed out by Harries, C.J. in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. v. Sukumar Milkherjee, AIR 1951 Cal 193 (S.B.) to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts with in the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors.” This statement of law was quoted with approval in a subsequent decision of this Court in Nagendra Nath Bora v. the Commr. of Hills Division 1958 SCR 1240 : (AIR 1958 SC 298) and It was pointed out by Sinha. J., as he then was, speaking on be half of the Court in that case. “It is thus, clear that the powers of judicial interference under Article 227 of the Constitution with orders of judicial or quasi-judicial nature, are not greater than the power under Article 226 of the Constitution. Under Article 226 of the power of interference may extend to quashing an impugned order on the face of the record. “It is thus, clear that the powers of judicial interference under Article 227 of the Constitution with orders of judicial or quasi-judicial nature, are not greater than the power under Article 226 of the Constitution. Under Article 226 of the power of interference may extend to quashing an impugned order on the face of the record. But under Article 227 of the Constitution, the power of interferences is limited to seeing that the tribunal functions with in the limits of its authority.” It would, there fore, be seen that the High Court cannot, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, interference with findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or tribunal. Its function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and re-appreciating it. What Morris. L.J., said in Rex v. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal (1952–1A ER 122) in regard to the scope and ambit of certiorari jurisdiction must apply equally in relation to exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227. That jurisdiction cannot be exercised: “as the cloak of an appeal in disguise. It does not lie in order to bring up an order or decision for rehearing of the issues raised in the proceedings.” If an error of fact, even though apparent on the face of the record, cannot be corrected by means of a writ of certiorari it should follow a fortiori that it is not subject to correction by the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227. The power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be invoked to correct an error of fact which only a superior court can do in exercise of its statutory power as a Court of appeal. The High Court cannot in guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 converts itself into a court of appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal and made the decision of the subordinate court or tribunal final on facts. The High Court cannot in guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 converts itself into a court of appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal and made the decision of the subordinate court or tribunal final on facts. (ii) The second ground on which the principal respondent objected the prayer of the petitioners is that the Original Suit No. 33/1967/4/2008/27/2010 in which title-ship of the suit land was in issue between the parties has already been disposed and during that period of time when the learned SDC and the learned Revenue Tribunal considered her prayer in the mutation case for mutation of her name in the record of rights of the suit land, only the connected judicial misc. case praying for restoration of the Original Suit was pending therefore, the learned Tribunal did not err in concluding that the Original Suit was not pending at that relevant time. As such, the learned Tribunal was right in passing the impugned order directing that the petitioners (principal respondent in this case) name be recorded in the record of rights of the suit land. Conclusions and reasons thereof: 6. The impugned order of the learned Tribunal was passed on the basis of 2 (two) reasons. First, on the assumption that no such case wherein title of the suit land was under dispute was pending at that time, when the petition for recording the name of the principal respondent was pending. Secondly, that the name of the husband of the principal respondent was recorded in the Jamabandi of the suit land at the relevant time, therefore, being the legal heir of her husband, her name should be recorded in the record of rights of the same. However, the fact is that while this case was pending, the Original Suit No. 33/1967/4/2008/27/2010 was restored, heard and disposed and in that, the petitioners in this case along with their co-heirs have been declared owners of the suit land. This fact is evident from the judgment and order of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Imphal East in the Original Suit No.33/1967/4/2008/27/2010,the relevant portion of which is given here below: “IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION, IMPHAL EAST Original Suit No.33/1967/11/93/27/10/13/2016 1. This fact is evident from the judgment and order of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Imphal East in the Original Suit No.33/1967/4/2008/27/2010,the relevant portion of which is given here below: “IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION, IMPHAL EAST Original Suit No.33/1967/11/93/27/10/13/2016 1. Smt. Thangjam Ningol Chingangbam Ongbi Ibetombi Devi aged about 41 years w/o late Babu Singh by occupation weaver of Khurai Thangjam Leikai, P.S. Imphal (now died by her L.Rs.) (i) Shri Chingangbam Dolen @ Dorendro Singh, aged about 63 years s/o late Babu Singh of Khurai Thangjam Leikai, P.S. Porompat P.S. Imphal, Imphal East District, Manipur. (ii) Shri Chingangbam Ingobi Singh aged about 60 years s/o late Babu Singh of Khurai Thangjam Leikai, P.S. Porompat P.S. Imphal, Imphal East District, Manipur. (iii) Smt. Chingangbam (N) Namoijam (O) Sorojini Devi, aged about 66 years w/o late Yaima Singh of Khurai Soibam Leikai, P.S. Porompat, P.O. Imphal, Imphal East District, Manipur. 2. Smt. Thangjam Ongbi Leirensana Devi aged about 70 years w/o late Gulamjat Singh of Khurai Thangjam Leikai, P.S. Imphal. (i) Yumnam Ongbi Maimu Devi aged about 37 years w/o Yumnam Ningthubi of Thoubal. (ii) Laishram Randhoni Devi w/o Ibotombi Singh of Khurai Thangjam Leikai (These two above named women are daughters of deceased plaintiff No.2 Leirensana Devi). (iii) Meisanam Ongbi Kunjarashi Devi w/o Achou Singh of Sagolband Meino Leirak, Imphal. Haobijam Ongbi Pishak Devi w/o Yaima Singh of Khurai Konsam Leikai. (iv) Yumnam Budhachandra Singh s/o late Tomba Singh of Khurai Sajor Puthem Leikai, Imphal. (These two women and a man named above are daughters and son of Ibeyaima, a predeceased daughter of deceased plainti No.2, Leirensana Devi). .…… Plaintiffs Versus 1. Shri Thangjam Irabot Singh, aged about 20 years s/o late Gulamjat Singh of Khurai Angongei Leikai, P.S. Imphal. 2. Shri Thokchom Saratkumar Singh, aged about 42 years s/o Th. Ibohal Singh, resident of Brahmapur Nahabam Imphal, P.O. Imphal P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur (now died and represent him by L.Rs. as follows: (i) Smt. Thokchom (O) Rajkumari Romita Devi, aged about 50 years w/o late Th. Sarat kumar Singh of Brahmapur Nahabam P.O. Imphal P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur. (ii) Shri Thokchom Praveen Kumar Singh, aged about 15 years s/o late Th. Sarat kumar Singh of Brahmapur Nahabam P.O. Imphal P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur. (iii) Shri Thokchom Churchil, aged about 10 years s/o late Th. Sarat kumar Singh of Brahmapur Nahabam P.O. Imphal P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur. (ii) Shri Thokchom Praveen Kumar Singh, aged about 15 years s/o late Th. Sarat kumar Singh of Brahmapur Nahabam P.O. Imphal P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur. (iii) Shri Thokchom Churchil, aged about 10 years s/o late Th. Sarat kumar Singh of Brahmapur Nahabam P.O. Imphal P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur. (iv) Kumari Thokchom Nirmala Devi aged about 19 years d/o late Th. Sarat Kumar Singh of Brahmapur Nahabam P.O. Imphal P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur. … Defendants Present W. Tonen Meitei Civil Judge, Senior Division, Imphal East. Counsel for the plaintiffs E. Nando Singh, Advocate Counsel for the defendants Ex-parte Date of hearing 14.03.2016 Date of order 18.03.2016 JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : ………………………… ORDER In the result, it is ordered and decreed that the plaintiffs are the owners of the properties covered by Patta No. 25/159 IE (Ingkhol) and another Patta No. 25/152 IET which are more-fully described in the plaint schedule on the basis of the distribution amongst the two wives and their daughter and son of the deceased Thangjam Gulamjat Singh. It is also further ordered and decreed that the Judgment and Decree dated 30th July 1966 passed in T.S. Case No. 2 of 1966 of the erstwhile 1st Subordinate Judge, Manipur has no legal force as the 1ubordinate Judge, Manipur had not declared the present defendant No.1 as owner of the present suit land. It is further ordered and decreed that assuming the defendant Thangjam Irabot Singh acquired his right and title over the suit land on the basis of the decree passed in T.S. Case No. 2 of 1966, his right and title has already been extinguished by efflux of time. It is further ordered that and decreed that the whatever transfers made pendent lite on the basis of the Decree dated 30.07.1966 in T.S. Case No.2 of 1966 made by the defendant Thangjam Irabot Singh shall have no legal effect and hence void ab-initio. It is also further ordered and decreed that the decisions arrived at by this Court shall also be binding to the newly added defendant No.2 Thokchom Sarat kumar Singh (now dead) by his L.Rs. his picture comes to the shoes of the defendant No.1 Thangjam Irabot Singh. The suit is decreed with out cost. Signed and sealed on this 18th day of March, 2016. his picture comes to the shoes of the defendant No.1 Thangjam Irabot Singh. The suit is decreed with out cost. Signed and sealed on this 18th day of March, 2016. Prepare a decree accordingly. Announced in the Open Court. Sd/- (W. Tonen Meitei) Civil Judge, Senior Division Imphal East.” 7. By the above judgment and decree, the title/ownership of the suit land has been settled by the competent Court in favour of the petitioners in this case, and it shall remain as such until or unless it is set aside by the Appellate Courts. In view of this, the impugned order cannot stand. Because, it would be an exercise in futility to record in the record of rights of a land in dispute, the name of somebody other than the name of the declared owner/title holder of the same and for the simple reason that no other person or persons can have a better right than the owner/title holder of a land to have his or her name recorded in the record of rights of the same. Further, the learned Tribunal exceeded his jurisdiction in his revisional power in as much as he had directed recording of the name of the principal respondent in the record of rights. In a revision case, it would have been sufficient if the learned Tribunal had only set aside the order of the learned SDC, if he finds the same illegal or improper and directed him to proceed according to the provisions of law provided. But the learned Tribunal assumed the power and jurisdiction of the learned SDC (Sub Deputy Collector) and decided whose name should be recorded in the record of rights of the suit land. Registration of mutation is to be carried out under Section 46 of the MLR & LR (Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms) Act, 1960 by the competent authority. When a petition under the said section is submitted and if objections is/are raised, the matter is to be decided by the competent authority as per the provision of (2) and (5) of Section 46 of MLR & LR Act 1960. It is for the competent authority to hear both the parties and determine as to which of the parties is in possession of the suit land and thereafter, enter the name of the person who is found to be in possession of the suit land. It is for the competent authority to hear both the parties and determine as to which of the parties is in possession of the suit land and thereafter, enter the name of the person who is found to be in possession of the suit land. The learned Tribunal instead of leaving the same to the competent authority to do, did it himself, therefore, exceeded his revisional jurisdiction. The following provision of MLR & LR Act will make the point clear. Section 46 of the MLR & LR Act, 1960 reads as follows: “45. Register of mutations: (1) There shall be maintained for every village a register of mutations in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) Any person acquiring by succession, survivor ship, in heritance, partition, purchase, “[exchange], gift or other wise any right in land or where such person acquiring the right is a minor or otherwise disqualified, his guardian or other person having charge of his property, shall report his acquisition of such right to the competent authority with in three months from the date of such acquisition and such authority shall give at once a written acknowledgment in the prescribed form for such report to the person making it. (3) The competent authority shall enter the substance of every report make to it under sub-section (2) in the register of mutations and also make an entry therein respecting the acquisition of any right of the kind mentioned in sub-section (2) which it has reason to believe to have taken place and of which a report has not been made under the sub-section and, at the same time, shall post up a complete copy of the entry in a conspicuous place in the village and shall give written intimation to all persons appearing from the record of rights or the register of mutations to be interested in the mutations and to any other person whom it has reason to believe to be interested therein. (4) Should any objection to any entry made under sub-section (3) in the register of mutations be made either orally or in writing to the competent authority, the particulars shall be entered in the register of disputed cases and the competent authority shall at once give a written acknowledgment in the prescribed form for the objection to the person making it. (5) The objections made under sub-section (4) shall be decided on the basis of possession by the competent authority and orders disposing of objections entered in the register of disputed cases shall be recorded in the register of mutations by the competent authority. “[Provided that a person, who does not acquire any right under sub-section (2) or by mortgage or lease, shall not make objection on the basis of possession.]” (6) After the entries in the register of mutations have been tested and found correct, the entries shall be certified by such officer as may be prescribed in this behalf.” 8. On plain reading of the law stated above, particularly, clauses (2) and (5), it would be clear that there are 2 (two) conditions which must be fulfilled before allowing entry of name of a persons by mutation in the record of rights. The first condition is that the person who asks for mutation of his or her name must show that he or she has acquired any right over the land by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, purchase, [exchange], gift or otherwise. And the second condition is that the person should be in possession of the land. The power/responsibility to decide whether such conditions as stated above, have been fulfilled or not by any of the parties in a dispute, is given first to the competent authorities which include SDC (Sub-Divisional Collector).Who is competent authority is provided under Section 2 (e) and the order issued under the power conferred therein (Appendix – VII) of MLR & LR Act, 1960. The provision of the law is given here below: “2. Definitions–In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires– (e) “competent authority” in relation to any provision, means any officer appointed by the [State Government] to be the competent authority for the purpose of that provision”. “APPENDIX–VII MANIPUR GAZETTE NO. The provision of the law is given here below: “2. Definitions–In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires– (e) “competent authority” in relation to any provision, means any officer appointed by the [State Government] to be the competent authority for the purpose of that provision”. “APPENDIX–VII MANIPUR GAZETTE NO. 28-E-19 DATED 31st MAY, 1961 MANIPUR ADMINISTRATION Secretariat : Revenue Branch Orders by the Chief Commissioner Imphal the 31st May, 1961 No.140/12/60-M(III) – In exercise of the powers conferred on him under clause (e) of Section 2 of the MLR & LR Act, 1960 (Act 33 of 1960) the Administrator hereby appoints the D.C., Addl., D.C.s, Director of Settlement & L. Records, Sub-Divisional Officers, E.A.Cs and Survey & Settlement Officers as the competent authorities for the purposes of Section 15, 20, 46, 58, 90, 111, 114, 115, 119, 126 and 132 and the Sub-Deputy Collectors and Asst. Survey and Settlement Officers as the competent authorities for the purposes of Sections 15, 46, 90, 111 and 126 only with effect from 1st June, 1961. By order etc. G.H. SINGH Secretary(R&M) Manipur Administration” 9. From the above stated order of the Chief Commissioner issued under Section2(e) of the MLR & LR Act, 1960, particularly the ones underlined, it is clear that it is those authorities/officers who are mentioned therein, that are given the power under Section 46 of the Act. Therefore, it is only when such power has been exercised, by any of the authorities that the Revisional Court i.e. Revenue Tribunal will have the jurisdiction to exercise the revisional power as given under Section 95 of the MLR & LR Act, 1960. However, on perusal of the order of the learned S.D.C. passed in Revenue Mutation Case No. 442 of 2014, dated 03.10.2014 against which the learned Tribunal passed the impugned order, it is amply clear that the learned S.D.C. has not decided the issue as to whose name should be recorded in the record of rights of the suit land but kept the same in abeyance for the time being till the outcome of the Original Suit No. 33 of 1967 in which ownership/title over the suit land was in dispute between the parties. But the learned Tribunal has decided the issue even before the competent authority decided the same. But the learned Tribunal has decided the issue even before the competent authority decided the same. It is for this reason also that this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has exceeded its revisional jurisdiction as provided under Section 95 of the MLR & LR Act, 1960. The other reason for holding such opinion is that such issues, as to whom possession of the suit land lies, should be left with the officer/competent authority who is in the field therefore, is in a better position to know as to who is in actual physical possession of the land in dispute. It is only when such officer/competent authority decide the issue outside the ambit of law that revisional Court should intervene. In view of the reasons given above and in the light of judgments quoted by the learned counsels representing the parties, I am of the view that this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution can intervene in the impugned judgment ℴ of the learned Revenue Tribunal. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned Revenue Tribunal is set aside and the learned S.D.C. (Sub Deputy Collector), Porompat, Imphal East who is the competent authority is directed to proceed with the Mutation Case No. 442 of 2014as per law provided. With this, the petition is disposed. Send back the lower Court records.