Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 46 (MAN)

Moshhilpa Maring v. Angom Amu Singh

2018-09-13

RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR

body2018
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. S. Sachindra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. N. Umakanta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This civil revision petition has been filed challenging the order of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Imphal East in Execution Case No. 2 of 2010/3/2011/1/2013/22/2014/1/2016 Ref: O.S. No. 8/2003/18/2013. 3. The respondents/petitioners/plaintiffs/decree holders filed the suit to demarcate the injunction suit against the present revision petitioners/defendants. The suit was decreed on 28.12.2009 in the following manner:- "1. For the aforesaid observations, reasons and findings, it is ordered and decreed that the boundaries of Kwatha Village are and shall be those that are given in Ext. 6 i.e. order dated 17.1.1924 passed by the Hon'ble Court of the President of Manipur State Darbar in Hill Misc. Case No. 116 of 1923-24. Parties are directed to maintain these boundaries for all time to come. The boundaries as per Exbt. 6 will be demarcated and identified. Defendants' counter claim is accordingly disposed of. Composite decree be prepared accordingly. But no costs. Sd/- (M. Ibohal Singh) Addl. District Judge (Fast Tract Court), Manipur West." 4. The decree was prepared on the basis of the judgment dated 28.12.2009 on same day and it reads as follows:- "2. That in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 28.12.2009, a decree dated 28.12.2009 was prepared by the Addl. District Judge (Fast Tract Court), Manipur West as follows: "For the aforesaid observations, reasons and findings, it is observed and decreed that the boundaries of Kwatha Village are and shall be those that are given in Ext. i.e. order dated 17.01.1924 passed by the Hon'ble Court of the President of Manipur State Darbar in Hill Misc. Case No. 116 of 1923-1924. Parties are directed to maintain these boundaries for all time to come. The boundaries as per Exbt.-6 will be demarcated and identified. Defendants' counter claim is accordingly disposed of. Composite decree be prepared accordingly. It is further ordered and decreed that parties will bear their own costs. Given under my hand and seal of the Court, this day the 28th December, 2009. Sd/- (M. Ibohal Singh) Addl. District Judge (Fast Tract Court), Manipur West." 5. In effect, the judgment and decree primarily relied upon Ext. 6 in the order dated 17.01.1924 passed by the Court of President of Manipur State Darbar in Hill Misc. Given under my hand and seal of the Court, this day the 28th December, 2009. Sd/- (M. Ibohal Singh) Addl. District Judge (Fast Tract Court), Manipur West." 5. In effect, the judgment and decree primarily relied upon Ext. 6 in the order dated 17.01.1924 passed by the Court of President of Manipur State Darbar in Hill Misc. Case No. 116 of 1923-24, and the same is set out for better clarity: "3. For more clarity, the operative portion of Ext. 6 i.e. order dated 17.01.1924 passed by the Court of the President of Manipur State Darbar in Hill Misc. Case No. 116 of 1923-24 is hereinafter reproduced: "In future the boundary between Leibi+Goatha will be Mimang Lok (main Lairem Loksha). The field at the head of this Lok will go to Leibi. The boundary is at the place where there are four "U Tangji" trees growing together. 6. Based on the judgment and decree, an Execution Case being No. No. 2 of 2010 came to be filed to execute the decree dated 28.12.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Tract Court), Manipur West in O.S. No. 8 of 2009. In the execution case, 2(two) orders were passed on 23.03.2010 and 28.06.2010. By this order, the Deputy Commissioner, Chandel, who is the head of the administration of the district wherein the two villages and the parties who are fighting for the demarcation of the boundary are situated, was directed to take up the task of demarcation. In the order, it was pointed out that the plaintiffs belong to "Meitei" community and the defendants belong to "Maring" community and in order to avoid communal feud at the time of demarcation, sufficient staff, members should be taken and the police authorities should be involved to avoid law and order situation. However, this order of the Execution court did not result in any fruitful action, forcing the decree holders to file W.P. (C) No. 427 of 2010 before the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, seeking to execute the judgment and decree dated 28.12.2009, and the writ petition was disposed of on 9.8.2010, directing the Deputy Commissioner, Chandel (respondent 4) and the Superintendent of Police, Chandel(respondent 5) to take steps for executing the lawful decree passed by the competent Civil Court in Execution Case No. 2 of 2010. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: "Upon hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench was pleased to dispose of Writ Petition being W.P. (C) No. 427 of 2010 on 09.08.2010 redirecting Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Chandel (Respondent 4) and Superintendent of Police, Chandel (respondent 5) with the following directions and observations:- "Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents-4 and 5 to take up necessary steps for executing the said lawful decree as per the order of the Competent Civil Court dated 23.03.2010 and 28.06.2010 passed in Execution Case No. 2/10. It is made clear that the respondents 4 and 5 shall give necessary notice to the affected parties in case of taking necessary steps for execution of the lawful decree of the competent Civil Court." Sd/- (TNK Singh) Judge, Gauhati High Court." 7. Thereafter, the case was taken up by the Deputy Commissioner, Chandel as Demarcation Case No. 1 of 2011, and he passed the order on 30.04.2011. A detailed order was placed before the Execution Court, and after considering the data submitted by the Deputy Commissioner in his Demarcation Case No. 1 of 2011, the Execution Court rendered the finding as follows:- "5. Findings of the Court: This Court perused the whole order dated 30th April, 2011 passed by Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Chandel in the light of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court's order dated 09.08.2010. On plain reading of the order dated 17.01.1924 passed by the Ld. President of Manipur State Darbar in Hill Misc. Case No. 116 of 1923-24, it is very clear and unequivocal that Mimang Lok should be the boundary between Leibi village and Goatha/Kwatha village. In this context, the observation and understanding of Ld. Deputy Commissioner Chandel is very much right in making an attempt to find "from where to where" the Lairam Lok flows and then from where Mimang Lok rises and at what exact point Mimang Lok flows into. As per observation of the Court of the Ld. President of Manipur State Darbar, the head/maru/rising point of Mimang Lok is specifically given as the place where there are four "U Tangji" trees growing together, which is shortly called "U Tangji Haubi Point". This landmark is very important in the sense that starting from this point upto the exact point where Mimang Lok flows into will be the boundary line between Leibi Village and Kwatha Village. This landmark is very important in the sense that starting from this point upto the exact point where Mimang Lok flows into will be the boundary line between Leibi Village and Kwatha Village. The Manipur State Darbar was also clear to the extent that a field lying at the head/rising point/maru of Mimang Lok shall be the land of Leibi village meaning thereby northern portion of the field contiguous to southern portion of Leibi village starting from U Tangji Haubi point will the land of Leibi village. There is no point of contention so far as the boundary line i.e. the course of Mimang Lok which is still in existence. The main contention between the two villages is in regard to the rising point/maru/head of Mimang Lok. This point of contention is also again simplified by the very clarification made by Manipur State Darbar which indicated a landmark i.e. the place where there are four "U Tangji" trees growing together. Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Chandel was correct in relying on certain acceptable and understandable tools for identification of the exact point which was given by Manipur State Darbar by eliciting information from different sources including conducting field inspection, taking comments/opinions from neighbouring villages, proper identification of rising point of Lairam Lok and the Mimanglok by using scientific methods with the help of scientists/experts of MARSAC. Moreover, being the head of Administration in the District, Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Chandel has both responsibility and accountability to prevent any untoward incident likely to arise between the contesting villages on account of boundary dispute and he did nothing wrong in organizing precautionary measures during the execution process. In this regard, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent was quite exaggerating in alleging that the manner of execution process was biased and was with predetermined mindset. Had Deputy Commissioner, Chandel not done proper homework, the execution process could not have been completed. The non-co-operative nature and violent acts/designs of Leibi Villagers is clearly visible right from day one when staffs of District Administration went for a field visit at the disputed site. Relevant portion of the order/report of Deputy Commissioner, Chandel is reproduced herewith: "......on reaching the disputed site, it was reportedly found that Leibi Villagers were present in large numbers and were also armed with sticks, doas, catapult & knives etc. Relevant portion of the order/report of Deputy Commissioner, Chandel is reproduced herewith: "......on reaching the disputed site, it was reportedly found that Leibi Villagers were present in large numbers and were also armed with sticks, doas, catapult & knives etc. and they insisted upon the officials that the boundary point as given by them should be accepted as the boundary point between the two Villages failing which no co-operation or participation will be given to the field visit and also further threatened that the District officials team will not be allowed to go to the boundary point as claimed by the Kwatha Village which lies little ahead of the boundary point claimed by the Leibi Village." It seems that Leibi Village never wanted the demarcation to proceed as per law. They simply wanted to impose their will upon the visiting Revenue officials by forcing them to fix the boundary at the exact point where they wanted and same is absolutely absurd and condemnable. The following extract of Deputy Commissioner's order verifies their true intention: "........the second visit by the official team led by ADC, Moreh on 09.03.2011 could also not complete the demarcation due to insistence by the Leibi villagers that the boundary between Leibi and Kwatha should be at the very spot pointed out by them and where a temporary shed was constructed by them for holding of discussion with their representatives, representatives of Kwatha village and the visiting officials. They prohibited further movement along the road to inspect the other spots claimed by Kwatha Villagers as the correct boundary from their point of view as well as the land marks mentioned in successive orders of Manipur State Darbar, Hon'ble Addl. District Judge (FTC), Manipur West and the Hon'ble High Court. Thus, the second attempt made by the officials to execute the Orders and Decree of the competent Courts was also scuttled due to the unreasonableness and scant regard of the due processes of law by Leibi villagers." Further, the following relevant portions of Ld. Deputy Commissioner's order will make the real situation under which the officials of District Administration undertook the execution process: "........However, the representatives of Leibi village plainly refused to extend any cooperation. The Ld. Deputy Commissioner's order will make the real situation under which the officials of District Administration undertook the execution process: "........However, the representatives of Leibi village plainly refused to extend any cooperation. The Ld. Counsel also declined to accompany the official team seemingly on his clients instruction in the visit to the contentious spots claimed and counter claimed by the contesting villages and for which latitudes and longitudes have been determined by MARSAC and the particular point where the boundary (final) peg will be placed is proposed to be pointed out. They also blatantly threatened the Kwatha villagers from proceeding beyond the said point with dire consequences. The Ld. Counsel of Kwatha village Shri N. Umakanta Singh and his associates could however accompany the undersigned. And Whereas, there is only one approach road to reach the relevant spots of ground positions 'C and 'D' and a Shaktiman truck was parked in a narrow stretch of the road purportedly being out of order and could not be moved, a fact which seemed highly suspicious and motivated under the circumstances. As such, the official vehicles could not proceed to the sites/points on vehicles. The whole team of officials and security personnel had therefore to move on foot to first see the furthest ground spot 'D' which is at the head of the main Lairam Lok i.e. maru and while returning, the boundary (final) peg was put at the ground spot 'C' as decided by the undersigned for which the rationale have been presented in the above paragraphs in the presence of the Ld. Counsel of Kwatha village, his accompanying Advocates as well as all the accompanying officials and security personnel. And Whereas on the return journey towards Ground position 'B' where the vehicles of the visiting team was parked, the undersigned and his team where assaulted by Leibi Villagers with sticks, catapult, knives, stones and firearms and necessary report has been lodged with the Moreh P.S." Under such circumstances, the point put forward by Ld. Counsel for the Respondents that the District Administration was quite biased right from the beginning is simply a wild allegation. It was, in fact, not the District Administration but the Leibi Villagers who were without a clean hand right from the beginning. They simply wanted to sabotage the execution process right from the beginning. Counsel for the Respondents that the District Administration was quite biased right from the beginning is simply a wild allegation. It was, in fact, not the District Administration but the Leibi Villagers who were without a clean hand right from the beginning. They simply wanted to sabotage the execution process right from the beginning. The complete disregard of due process of law by Leibi Villagers in the execution process is quite unfortunate. Upon hearing both the sides, Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Chandel identified three points: 1. "B" (denoting the latitude 24°21'31.60230" N and longitude 94°15'35.03190"E) is the spot claimed by Leibi village as the boundary interpreting it as the tip of the masa of the Lairam Lok. 2. "C" (denoting 24°22'31.48361 "N and longitude 94°15'19.82663"E) signifies the Spot which is claimed to be the Lairam Lok Maru by Leibi Village but contrary to which Kwatha village claims to be the Lairam Lok masa where the U Tangji trees grew and is therefore the boundary point between the two villages. 3. "D" (denoting 24°23'17.71345 "Nand longitude 94°15722.37864E") is claimed to be the head of the Lairam Lok maru by Kwatha village. Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Chandel discarded the point 'B' by giving reasons. Relevant portion of the order/report of Deputy Commissioner, Chandel is reproduced herewith: "And Whereas, from study of the loks or streams system depicted in the map in Annexure-A, it is observed that the lok emanating from ground position 'B' does not connect with the Namchet Lok river directly implying thereby that the said lok is not a tributary of the Namchet Lok river and cannot therefore be accepted to be the main Lairam Lok. Instead, the said lok is seen to be a tributary of Lairam Lok. The above finding does not support the contention of Leibi village that spot 'B' is the point where Lairam Lok masa begins and Where the U Tangji trees grew. In fact, there is no probable physical evidence whatsoever where the U Tangji trees could have grown. Nor are there any sign of growth of U Tangji trees or forests in the hillocks in the vicinity of the spot depicted by 'B'. Furthermore, it is difficult to identify any area which could be interpreted to be the field at the head of the Lok as mentioned in the order of President, Manipur State Darbar. Nor are there any sign of growth of U Tangji trees or forests in the hillocks in the vicinity of the spot depicted by 'B'. Furthermore, it is difficult to identify any area which could be interpreted to be the field at the head of the Lok as mentioned in the order of President, Manipur State Darbar. Therefore, the contention that 'B' is the boundary is not convincing. It may also be added that the stream flowing from point 'B' is quite insignificant and cannot be construed to be the Lairam Lok." Ld. Counsel for the Respondents also alleged that the rising point/maru of Lairam Lok is the spot "C" and insisted that it the place where Four U Tangji trees once grew together. On the other hand the Kwatha village claim that spot "C" is tip/head/maru "of Mimang Lok. Claims are claims motivated by self interest. Court has a special duty to examine the tools relied upon by Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Chandel in coming to the conclusion that Point "C" is the exact rising point/maru of Mimang Lok where Four U Tangji trees once grew together. The extract of the order dated 30.04.2011 of Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Chandel is reproduced herewith. "And Whereas, ground positions denoted by 'C and 'D' belong to the some water system or stream which directly falls into the Namchet Lok. Furthermore, 'D' being the furthermost point would be the head i.e. maru of the system and 'C would be the starting point of the masa. This is the most prominent water system which finally joins with the Namchetlu river (or Namchet Lok). This system is accordingly identified as the Lairam Lok river with the point 'D' as the head or maru and 'C' as its masa. It is also a tributary of the Namchet Lok. Further, the existence of a discernible field between ground positions 'C and 'D' lend credence to the claim of Kwatha Village. Besides, many 'U' Thanji trees are still seen to grow in the Hillock immediately adjacent but on the southern side of ground position 'C'. All these findings fit with the order passed by the President, Manipur State Darbar. Further, the existence of a discernible field between ground positions 'C and 'D' lend credence to the claim of Kwatha Village. Besides, many 'U' Thanji trees are still seen to grow in the Hillock immediately adjacent but on the southern side of ground position 'C'. All these findings fit with the order passed by the President, Manipur State Darbar. Accordingly, the logical conclusion is that ground position 'C' is the boundary between Leibi village and Kwatha village and where the four "LP Thanji trees once grew." Moreover, spot "C" (denoting 24°22'31.48361"N) is on the southern side of spot "D" (denoting 24°23' 17.71345"N) as per Satellite imagery report conducted by MARSAC. There is a field between spot "C" and spot "D" which as per findings of Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Chandel shall go to Leibi and same is contiguous to Leibi Village. It clearly shows that there is no shadow of doubt that point "C" should be the U tangji Haubi Point as there are still U Tangji trees grow at the vicinity of spot "C". In other sense, putting boundary peg at spot "D" may cost more land of Leibi Village. Accordingly, the logical conclusion of Ld. Deputy Commissioner that ground position 'C' is the boundary between Leibi village and Kwatha village and where the four 'U' Thanji trees once grew is right without a shadow of doubt. The conclusion of Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Chandel was further corroborated/endorsed by the comments/opinions of chiefs of neighbouring villages who are well informed about the past history of neighbouring villages. There is no conflicting opinion as regards the Four U Thanji Haubi Point of the neighbouring villages who are also Scheduled Tribes like the Leibi Village. Fact is fact and it cannot be manipulated based on communal considerations. The relevant portion of the order 30.04.2011 of Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Chandel is reproduced herewith. There is no conflicting opinion as regards the Four U Thanji Haubi Point of the neighbouring villages who are also Scheduled Tribes like the Leibi Village. Fact is fact and it cannot be manipulated based on communal considerations. The relevant portion of the order 30.04.2011 of Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Chandel is reproduced herewith. "And Whereas, taking into consideration the opposition and non-co-operative nature shown by the Leibi Villagers, it was felt that a still more deeper enquiry was required to be carried out before fixing another date to visit the disputed site to execute the Hon'ble High Court's Judgment and Order; the ADC, Moreh detailed the concerned Head Lambu to make detailed enquiry with a view to ascertain the real and correct boundary between the two Villages by making field enquiry and also for taking opinions and comments from members of other Villages settled near or around the two contesting Villages. And Whereas, the Head Lambu of the SDC Circle, Moreh accordingly submitted his enquiry report on 24.11.2010 wherein it has been stated that the Chiefs of the neighbouring Villages endorsed/corroborated the claim of Kwatha Villages with regard to the boundary dispute to be the true one. In other words, they supported the spot on the ground claimed by Kwatha Villagers as the correct boundary between Kwatha Village and Leibi Village." Ld. Counsel for Respondents argued that Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Chandel had gone beyond the power given to him as an executing agency of the Hon'ble Court's order by alleging that the Leibi Village was never given due notice about the demarcation process. This argument is also not acceptable as the chain of events indicates otherwise. It is evident from the fact of service of notice and summons to Chairman/Chiefs of the two contesting villages vide the ADC, Moreh vide his letters bearing No. ADC(MRH)I3IHMC/2010 dated 27.10.2010. The relevant portion of the order 30.04.2011 of Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Chandel is reproduced herewith. This argument is also not acceptable as the chain of events indicates otherwise. It is evident from the fact of service of notice and summons to Chairman/Chiefs of the two contesting villages vide the ADC, Moreh vide his letters bearing No. ADC(MRH)I3IHMC/2010 dated 27.10.2010. The relevant portion of the order 30.04.2011 of Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Chandel is reproduced herewith. "And Whereas, proper Notices and Summons were served on the Chairman/Chiefs of the two contesting villages for participation and co-operation in the spot/field visit for verifying the boundary between the two Villages at the disputed site by the ADC, Moreh Vide his letters bearing No. ADC (MRH)I3IHMC/2010 dated 27.10.2010." Moreover, further notice was served to all the contesting parties and chiefs of neighbouring villages on the day i.e. 28"' April, 2011 actual demarcation was done after an extensive research by the District Administration, Chandel. It is evident from the fact that a massive arrangement was made Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Chandel on 28th April, 2011 by inviting all chiefs/leaders of neighbouring villages. The relevant portion of the order 30.04.2011 of Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Chandel is reproduced herewith. "And Whereas, the following representatives of Leibi village and Kwatha village and officials were present at the temporary shed constructed at the same spot indicated by Leibi villagers to be the correct spot/boundary which is represented by point 'B' in the map for the discussions for proceeding further with the demarcation: Leibi Village: U. Duidang, Advocate, Counsel of Leibi Village Kh. Medar Dangsak, Chairman, Leibi Village Authority K. Angdou, Leibi Village leaders/authorities members Th. Angkham, Leibi Village leaders/authorities members Moshilpha, Leibi Village leaders/authorities members Th. Angkha, Leibi Village leaders/authorities members DL. Mosesm, Leibi Village leaders/authorities members Leithilkham, Leibi Village leaders/authorities members Kwatha Village: N. Umakanta, Advocate and his associates, Counsel of Kwatha Village A. Amu Singh, Chairman, Kwatha Village Authority Ksh. Yaima Singh, Secretary, Kwatha Village Authority T. Nando Singh, Kwatha Village leaders/authorities members Ksh. Kesho Singh, Kwatha Village leaders/authorities members N. Shangujao Singh, Kwatha Village leaders/authorities members L. Kokngang Kwatha Village leaders/authorities members Nearby Villages Organisations: Doujathang Baite, Chief of Bongjang Mangkhopao Haokip, Chief of Yang-outubi Zangkholun, Secretary. Khudengthabi Village Letngam Luphing, Vice President, Kuki Chiefs Association, Moreh Block Ngamkholun Kipgen, General Secretary, Kuki Chiefs Association, Moreh Block Officials: Lunminthang Haokip, ADC, Moreh Md. A. Salam Khan, AS & SO L. Nganba, Scientist (MARSAC) Kusheshwor Longjam. Khudengthabi Village Letngam Luphing, Vice President, Kuki Chiefs Association, Moreh Block Ngamkholun Kipgen, General Secretary, Kuki Chiefs Association, Moreh Block Officials: Lunminthang Haokip, ADC, Moreh Md. A. Salam Khan, AS & SO L. Nganba, Scientist (MARSAC) Kusheshwor Longjam. Scientist (MARSAC) Singhajit Maibam, Scientist (MARSAC) S. Biswajeet Singh, Mandol Md. Amir Khan, Mandol." The presence of huge number of Leibi Villagers in all the attempts for field inspection/ demarcation speaks for itself that both the villages, specially Leibi village were well informed and due notice was served and there is no question surpassing the order of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court wherein it was directed that due notice be given to the affected parties. Ld. Counsel for the Respondents further submitted that the execution process done by Deputy Commissioner, Chandel was not complete as only one peg was fixed at the spot "C". This Court, in this regard, had already observed that there is no point of contention so far as the boundary line i.e. the course of Mimang Lok. The main contention between the two villages is in regard to the rising point/maru/head of Mimang Lok. Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Chandel did no wrong in putting/fixing the boundary peg at spot 'C only as the rest of the boundary is Mimang Lok itself. I have also perused the relevant case laws submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondents in support of his arguments. In close examination of case laws discussed therein, it has no bearing in the present case. There was no technical defect in the execution process. The District Administration did a great job by exercising due diligence and application of mind and same was not done for "namesake." The involvement of huge number of chiefs/leaders of neighbouring villages ranging from Bongyang to Moreh speaks for itself that at no point of time the District Administration had a biased and predetermined mindset and that Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Chandel allowed himself of public scrutiny, if any. Except the respondent village, all the village leaders/chiefs endorsed the mode of execution of Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Chandel. Moreover, demarcation in the hilly areas cannot be equated with demarcation in valleys which are already surveyed. Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Chandel did extensive homework before doing actual demarcation and there is nothing wrong in it. Had there not been extensive homework done by Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Chandel. Moreover, demarcation in the hilly areas cannot be equated with demarcation in valleys which are already surveyed. Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Chandel did extensive homework before doing actual demarcation and there is nothing wrong in it. Had there not been extensive homework done by Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Chandel, the execution process would have been sabotaged by Leibi Villagers. In view of what has been discussed above, I hereby approve and accept the order/report dated 30th April 2011 passed/submitted by Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Chandel. Starting from spot 'C' (denoting 24°22'31.48361"N) where boundary peg was fixed by Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Chandel upto the exact point where MIMANGLOK flows into Namchetlu River will be the boundary line between Leibi Village and Kwatha Village. Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Tengnoupal is requested to prepare a fresh sketch map on the basis of the order dated 30th April 2011 passed by Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Chandel thereby clearly indicating the respective boundaries of Leibi and Kwatha Village and necessary orders may be issued in this regard by vividly indicating the schedule of land of the respective villages. Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Tengnoupal and the Superintendent of Police, Tengnoupal are further requested to take up all necessary steps for observing peaceful co-existence between two villages and also for preventing any sort of unwanted incident/communal feud between the villages in future. Accordingly, the present Execution Case No. 2/2010 is hereby closed. Let a copy of this Order be sent to the DGP, Manipur for information. Let a copy of this Order be sent to the Commissioner (Revenue), Government of Manipur for information. Let a copy of this Order be sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Tengnoupal for information and for doing the needful. Let a copy of this Order be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Tengnoupal for information and for doing the needful. Let a copy of this Order be sent to the Addl. S.P. Moreh for information and for doing the needful. Let a copy of this order be made available to each of the parties as prayed for. (Y. Somorjit Singh) Civil Judge, Senior Division, Imphal East." 8. Let a copy of this Order be sent to the Addl. S.P. Moreh for information and for doing the needful. Let a copy of this order be made available to each of the parties as prayed for. (Y. Somorjit Singh) Civil Judge, Senior Division, Imphal East." 8. The Execution Court, after considering the detailed order passed in the demarcation case, rejected all the objections raised by the present revision petitioners, and accepted the opinion and views of the Deputy Commissioner, Chandel and directed him to prepare a fresh sketch map on the basis of his order dated 30.04.2011, thereby making it clear that the boundary of village Leibi and Kwatha should be redrawn on the basis of report for the use of the respective villages. He closed the Execution Case, with a further direction to other officers for implementing it in letter and spirit. This order of the Execution Court is under challenge. 9. Mr. S. Sachindra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants in the suit impressed upon the Court that the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner, Chandel in Demarcation Case No. 1 of 2011 suffered from serious errors of fact. In that, he has misconstrued the location of the 'maru' equivalent to 'head' and 'masa' the tributary in relation to Lairam Lok also known as Mimanglok from the main river Namchetlu. 10. To highlight this point, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, referred to the three points identified by the Deputy Commissioner, Chandel for the purpose of demarcation by identifying 'maru' equivalent to 'head' and 'masa' tributary as follows: "6. Upon hearing both the sides, Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Chandel identified three points: 1. "B" (denoting the latitude 24° 21'31.60230" N and longitude 94°15' 35.03190"E) is the spot claimed by Leibi village as the boundary interpreting it as the tip of the masa of the Lairam Lok. 2. "C" (denoting 24°22'31.48361 "N and longitude 94°15'19.82663"E) signifies the Spot which is claimed to be the Lairam Lok Maru by Leibi Village but contrary to which Kwatha village claims to be the Lairam Lok masa where the U Tangji trees grew and is therefore the boundary point between the two villages. 3. "D" (denoting 24°23'17.71345 "N and longitude 94°15'22.37864E") is claimed to be the head of the Lairam Lok maru by Kwatha village." 11. 3. "D" (denoting 24°23'17.71345 "N and longitude 94°15'22.37864E") is claimed to be the head of the Lairam Lok maru by Kwatha village." 11. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the spot claimed by Leibi Village will be the tip of the 'masa' of Lairam Lok whereas according to the Kwatha village the 'maru' is at spot 'D' and 'masa' is at spot 'C. In other words, the Lairam Lok also known as Mimanglok tributary in connection with Namchetlu River, has his head point at 'D' and the tributary 'masa' point at 'C This view of the Deputy Commissioner, Chandel, is based on not only the proceedings of the data found in the order dated 17.01.1924 passed by the President of Manipur State Darbar in Hill Misc. Case No. 116 of 1923-24, but also on the basis of a specialized study using Manipur Remote Sensing Applications Centre (MARS AC) to identify the location of the spot in relation to Namchetlu River and the boundaries of the two villages in relation to the tributary Lairam Loksha @ Mimanglok. 12. In the report of the Deputy Commissioner, specific details of the growth of U Tangji trees as was reflected in the Hill Misc. Case No. 116 of 1923-24, was also indicated. The Deputy Commissioner, Chandel, on the basis of both scientific as well as old existing records of the Manipur State Darbar's order, was clearly of the view that point 'D' will be the maru head and point 'C will be the 'masa' tributary. This demarcation was done in the presence of persons concerned, but it appears that the petitioners/Leibi Villagers had some confrontation at the time of demarcation which led to some law and order situation. Nevertheless, the Deputy Commissioner, Chandel, proceeded on the basis of all relevant datas available in the old records as well as the separate map furnished by MARS AC, copies of which has been enclosed with his order. Clear and cogent reason has been given by the Deputy Commissioner, Chandel as to how he is fixing the 'maru' head at point 'D' and 'masa' tributary at point 'C'. He has also given reasons as to why he is rejecting point 'B' as totally untenable. Clear and cogent reason has been given by the Deputy Commissioner, Chandel as to how he is fixing the 'maru' head at point 'D' and 'masa' tributary at point 'C'. He has also given reasons as to why he is rejecting point 'B' as totally untenable. In fact, he clearly makes a point that the study of local stream depicted in map to his report that the Lok emanating from ground position 'B' does not connect with Namchetlu river (Namchet Lok), directly implying thereby that the Lok is not a tributary at Namchetlu river (Namchet Lok), and therefore, cannot be accepted to be main Lairem lok. This method, apparently, is scientific and based on the spot study. The reasoning and finding are specific. Relevant portion reads as follows: "7. And Whereas, from study of the loks or streams system depicted in the map in Annexure-A, it is observed that the lok emanating from ground position 'B' does not connect with the Namchet Lok river directly implying thereby that the said lok is not a tributary of the Namchet Lok river and cannot therefore be accepted to be the main Lairam Lok. Instead, the said lok is seen to be a tributary of Lairam Lok. The above finding does not support the contention of Leibi village that spot 'B' is the point where Lairam Lok masa begins and where the U Tangji trees grew. In fact, there is no probable physical evidence whatsoever where the U Tangji trees could have grown. Nor are there any sign of growth of U Tangji trees or forests in the hillocks in the vicinity of the spot depicted by 'B'. Furthermore, it is difficult to identify any area which could be interpreted to be the field at the head of the Lok as mentioned in the order of President, Manipur State Darbar. Therefore, the contention that 'B' is the boundary is not convincing. It may also be added that the stream flowing from point 'B' is quite insignificant and can not be construed to be the Lairam Lok. And Whereas, ground positions denoted by 'C and 'D' belong to the same water system or stream which directly falls into the Namchet Lok. Furthermore, 'D' being the furthermost point would be the head i.e. maru of the system and 'C would be the starting point of the masa. And Whereas, ground positions denoted by 'C and 'D' belong to the same water system or stream which directly falls into the Namchet Lok. Furthermore, 'D' being the furthermost point would be the head i.e. maru of the system and 'C would be the starting point of the masa. This is the most prominent water system which finally joins with the Namchetlu river (or Namchet Lok). This system is accordingly identified as the Lairam Lok river with the point 'D' as the head or maru and 'C' as its masa. It is also a tributary of the Namchet Lok. Further, the existence of a discernible field between ground positions 'C and 'D' lend credence to the claim of Kwatha Village. Besides, many LP Thanji trees are still seen to grow in the Hillock immediately adjacent but on the southern side of ground position 'C. All these findings fit with the order passed by the President, Manipur State Darbar. Accordingly, the logical conclusion is that ground position 'C' is the boundary between Leibi village and Kwatha village and where the four LP Thanji trees once grew. And whereas, having deduced from all the available evidences and having arrived at the conclusion that ground spot 'C is the boundary point which is at a point along the Khuden-gthabi-Leibi Jeepable Road, the undersigned fixed the 28th April, 2011 for personally visiting the disputed site for identification and demarcation along with the SP/Chandel, AS&SO of DSLR and officials of MARSAC after following due process for informing the Ld. Counsel of both Parties and representatives of the contesting villages and that of neighbouring villages." 13. On the basis of this clear and specific report, the Execution Court had no other option except to accept the report because it is based not only on the loaction specified in the Court of President of Manipur State Darbar in Hill Misc. Case No. 116 of 1923-24 dated 17.01.1924, but also on scientific application of MARSAC. Besides, there has been specific on spot verification at the time of demarcation by the authorities in the presence of large number of villagers. If the revision petitioners did not participate, it is their peril. They cannot turn around and find fault with the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner. Besides, there has been specific on spot verification at the time of demarcation by the authorities in the presence of large number of villagers. If the revision petitioners did not participate, it is their peril. They cannot turn around and find fault with the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, factually, there appears to be no error apparent on the face of record in the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner, Chandel, and the order of the Civil Judge impugned, who has correctly approved the same in the Execution Case and closed the same with a direction to prepare a fresh sketch map on the basis of the order dated 30.04.2011. 14. The scope of interference by the Court, more particularly, this Court against the order passed by the Execution Court has been discussed by different High Courts. The following judgments may be relevant to highlight the scope and power of the High Court while interfering the orders of the Execution Court: (i) Gopal Ch. Paul vs. Smt. Amala Mondal, AIR 1990 Cal. 105 . Relevant para reads as follows: "36. With regard to the submission of Mr. Dasgupta that within the scope of S. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure it is not open to the executing court to go into the question of the validity of the decree passed by the competent Court, unless it will be shown that there was any legal impediment to pass such a decree. In my view, true under the law, an executing court cannot go behind the decree. But if it could be shown that the decree was a nullity certainly the executing court can go into this question and hold that the decree was a nullity and could not be executed. It is firmly established principle that decree is passed on which the court has no jurisdiction, is a nullity. In the instant case, because of the legal fiction arising out of the extension of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act 1949 with retrospective effect to the area in question, the decree which was validly passed by the Trial Court has been rendered invalid and inoperative as the Court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree as the ground for decree did not conform with the grounds mentioned in the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act." (ii) Ganapathi and Another vs. Balasu bramania Gounder, AIR 1987 Mad. 124 . 124 . Relevant portion at para 10 reads as follows: "It is difficult to see how defendants 4 and 5 who are the legal representatives of the deceased Thanikachalam could now raise only question with regard to the liability of the decrial property to sale in execution of the mortgage decree. It is an established proposition of law that the executing Court must execute the decree as it stands and it cannot go into the correctness or validity of the decree except when the decree is a nullity. Since the decree is of a Court with jurisdiction, the executing Court is bound to execute the decree as it stands. The relief which the revision petitioners in these two revision petitions are substantially asking is that the decree must be so modified as to make it ineffective and inoperative in respect of certain properties. In other words, the argument comes to this i.e. in so far as the properties in respect of which the petitioners are contending that these properties are not liable to be sold, the decree is invalid." 15. The Execution Court in this case has proceeded to pass orders based on the decree and the demarcation order which is backed by a direction of this Court. The order is within the scope of the decree which is reflected in the demarcation order. 16. In the above factual matrix, this Court does not find any serious error in the demarcation report of the Deputy Commissioner, Chandel, as all records and materials required by law has been taken into consideration, and the best practice adopted. Principles of natural justice have been scrupulously followed. It is also based on the direction of this Court. A comprehensive report has been filed giving each and every factual details possible in exactitude to justify the demarcation order. Therefore, this Court does not find any error with the order of the Deputy Commissioner. The order of the Execution Court which is under challenge has also analyzed the demarcation order in detail and tested it on the basis of the decree. The order of the Execution Court is in consonance with the decree. Hence, it cannot be faulted. 17. The petitioner has not been able to establish any good ground to interfere with the order of the Execution Court. The factual dispute raised appears to be superficial challenge to the decree which has become final. The order of the Execution Court is in consonance with the decree. Hence, it cannot be faulted. 17. The petitioner has not been able to establish any good ground to interfere with the order of the Execution Court. The factual dispute raised appears to be superficial challenge to the decree which has become final. The Execution Court cannot go beyond the decree. 18. For all the above reasons, this Court does not find any good lawful reason to interfere with the order impugned. 19. In the result, ending no merits, revision petition stands dismissed.