Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 44 (MAN)

Thangjam Lakumar Singh v. Naorem (N) Ibemhal Devi

2018-09-07

R.SUDHAKAR

body2018
ORDER : R. Sudhakar, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. Sachikumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. 2. This matter was heard on 05.09.2018 and adjourned for appearance of counsel for the respondents. A request was made to the petitioner's counsel to inform the other side and he has filed an affidavit dated 06.09.2018. Para 2 of that reads as follows:- "That, on 05/09/2018, the above referred case was listed for hearing before the Hon'ble Court but due to the absence of the conducting counsel of the respondents; the hearing of the case was not concluded. Further as per the direction of the Hon'ble Court, I have informed the counsels of the respondents namely, A. Surendrakumar, Advocate through his junior colleague Doren Singh, Advocate in his mobile No. 9856252254 about the status of the case at around 9:30 am on 06/09/2018." 3. Since respondent's counsel is not present today despite sufficient opportunity being given, the Court has no other option except to proceed with the matter. 4. A non party to the Revenue Revision Case No. 3 of 2015, has filed this civil revision petition challenging the order dated 15.01.2015, primarily pleading that he is the land owner of .30 acres out of total extent of .55 acres covered by C.S. Dag No. 249/251/297 under patta No. 138/57 at Village No. 63 Heibongpokpi, Imphal West. 5. The order under challenge has been passed by the Presiding Officer, Revenue Tribunal, Manipur at the behest of 3 petitioners namely, (i) Smt. Naorem (N) Ibemhal Devi (ii) Smt. Naorem Tilotama Devi (iii) Naorem Chandrasakhi Devi; against Shri Naorem Babuyaima Singh/sole respondent. The said order of the Revenue Tribunal reads as follows: "Case is put up today. Petitioner No. 2 and 3 and petitioner No. 1 by ld. Counsel present. Respondent namely Shri Naorem Babuyaima Singh along with ld. Counsel present and filed written statement, wherein the respondent admitted the entire averment of the petitioners Thus the respondent pray for setting aside the impugned order dated 12-6-1985 passed by the ld. Sub-Deputy Collector, Lamshang, Imphal West in Misc. Case No. 68/SDC/I-W-L/85, wherein the ld. Counsel present. Respondent namely Shri Naorem Babuyaima Singh along with ld. Counsel present and filed written statement, wherein the respondent admitted the entire averment of the petitioners Thus the respondent pray for setting aside the impugned order dated 12-6-1985 passed by the ld. Sub-Deputy Collector, Lamshang, Imphal West in Misc. Case No. 68/SDC/I-W-L/85, wherein the ld. SDC, Lamshang allowed mutation of the name of the respondent by cancelling the name of (L) N. Tamphajao Singh in respect of the land under patta No. 138/57 covered by C.S. Dag No. 249/251/297 measuring an area of .55 acres situated at Village No. 63 Heibongpokpi I.W. I have heard both sides submission and perused the materials on record. Since the respondent admitted the averment and claim of the petitioners, I find no necessity for prolonging the case. Accordingly, the said impugned order dated 12-6-1985 passed by the ld. Sub-Deputy Collector, Lamshang in Misc. Case No. 68/SDC/I-W-L/85 is hereby set aside and the name of the late Naorem Tamphajao Singh be restored in respect of the land aforementioned. Further, the parties are at liberty to mutate this name as co-pattadar or otherwise by approaching the concerned authority, who in turn shall notify to all the interested party. This case is accordingly disposed. Send an extract copy of this order to the ld. SDC, Lamshang for necessary action. Announced in the open Court." 6. The case of the petitioner is that the land in question, namely, 0.30 acre covered by C.S. Dag No. 249/388 under pata No. 138(Old)/57/290 (New) situated at Revenue village No. 63-Heibongpokpi was sold by Mr. Naorem Thoiba Singh, S/o. Babuyaima Singh of Heibongpokpi, Imphal West District, Manipur, and the present petitioner purchased the said extent of land for a sum of Rs. 66,000/- (Rupees sixty six thousand) only, registered as document No. 2553 of 2013. Based on that, he moved the Sub Deputy Collector, Lamshang in Mutation Case No. 741/SDC/IW-L/2013, and the SDC recorded as follows: ORDER 13/09/2013 "Registered as a mutation case. Both the parties along with their witnesses are present and heard. They are identified by the witnesses present through the CM of this office. Based on that, he moved the Sub Deputy Collector, Lamshang in Mutation Case No. 741/SDC/IW-L/2013, and the SDC recorded as follows: ORDER 13/09/2013 "Registered as a mutation case. Both the parties along with their witnesses are present and heard. They are identified by the witnesses present through the CM of this office. The fact of the case is that the OP/recorded pattadar had sold his land to the present petitioner above that the land of 0.30 acre of Ingkhol class covered by C.S. Dag No. 249/388 U/P No. 138 (Old)/57/290(N) situated at Village No. 63-Heibongpokpi IWT, Lamshang on the strength of a regd. Sale and being No. 2553/2013. In this regard, further that Ops had stated that he had delivered the possession of the said land to the petitioner and raised no objection against the proposed petition as per valid reged sale deed on 24/08/2013. Hence, the prayer is allowed. SK/RI is to correct records accordingly. Announced. Sd/ (N. Shantabir Singh) Sub-Deputy Collector IW, Lamshang." 7. Based on this mutation order dated 13.09.2013, the Jamabandi record has also been endorsed (Annexure-A/4) showing the name of the petitioner, as lawful owner of the above extent of 0.30 acres in Dag No. 249/388 subject to Mutation Case No. 741/SDC/IW-L/2013 dated 13.09.2013. 8. While he claims to be the valid purchaser of land for valid consideration which has resulted in mutation order and endorsement in the Jamabandi record, the respondents by collusion and by illegal means, have filed the Revenue Revision Case No. 3 of 2015 before the Revenue Tribunal after 29 years and a collusive order has been passed and one interfering with the lawful right, title and interest of the petitioner and therefore, he is an aggrieved person, hence this petition. 9. Mr. A. Sachikumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, pleads that respondents Naorem Babuyaima Singh and his 3 (three) sisters, have filed a collusive Revision Case No. 3 of 2015 suppressing several documents and also the fact that the land which is the subject matter of Revenue Revision Case No. 3 of 2015 has already been partially sold by Naorem Babuyaima's son the vendor by a valid sale and has been endorsed in the revenue records. The sale date 22.07.2013 and the mutation under date 13.09.2013, Jamabandi records and have been suppressed by the present respondents before the Revenue Tribunal. The sale date 22.07.2013 and the mutation under date 13.09.2013, Jamabandi records and have been suppressed by the present respondents before the Revenue Tribunal. This dubious method has been adopted to deprive the petitioner of his lawful property in question. This plea stands uncontroverted by the respondents despite issue of notice, and the parties appear through counsel, Mr. A. Surendrakumar who has not chosen to appear. The respondent even after service have not shown interest in defending the case. This Court has no option but to proceed on merits. 10. As has been observed by this Court earlier, Mr. A. Sachikumar, learned counsel of the petitioner made earnest attempt to inform the counsel and his junior, but they have not chosen to respond. The respondents have already been noticed through Court and therefore there is no need to issue any fresh notice. 11. Prima facie, the documents submitted by the petitioner, namely Sale Deed dated 22.07.2013 (Annexure-A/2), the Mutation Case No. 741/SDC/IW-L/2013 dated 13.09.2013 (Annexure A/3), Jamabandi (Annexure-A4) recording the mutation case, make it clear that in respect of the property in issue, the petitioner has a valid title and record. That should have been considered by the Revenue Tribunal at the time of deciding the issue in relation to the very same property. There appears to be clear case of suppression of facts and misstatement. The revenue records were not summoned and verified. 12. In this view of the matter, the Court has no hesitation to allow this petition for setting aside the order of the revenue tribunal. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed and the impugned order of the revenue tribunal is set aside and the case is remanded back to the revenue tribunal to decide the issue afresh after hearing the petitioner as a party respondent. 13. Civil Revision Petition stands allowed as above.