Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 141 (MAN)

Gainaichung Malangmei v. State of Manipur

2022-07-29

M.V.MURALIDARAN, SANJAY KUMAR

body2022
JUDGMENT Sanjay Kumar; CJ. - Preceded by a long and checkered history, ancient as well as litigative, factual narrative in these cases needs recount at length and in detail. 2. The 'Zeliangrong' are one of the indigenous Naga communities in Manipur. 'Zeliangrong' comprises Zeme, Liangmei and Rongmei (Kabui) Tribes combined. It is derived from 'Ze' from Zeme, 'Liang' from Liangmei and 'Rong' from Rongmei. In these indigenous tribes, the posts of 'Khunbu' and 'Khullakpa' were in vogue since times immemorial. 'Khunbu' refers to the founder/owner of the village whereas 'Khullakpa' is the Headman or administrator of the village. The post of 'Khullakpa' is sacrosanct as he is the representative of the village in all religious rites, apart from being its administrator. The office of 'Khullakpa' is not considered hereditary in the sense of a son automatically succeeding his father, though a son or a younger brother stands a good chance of assuming office after the death of the incumbent. The usual tradition is that the vacancy in this office would be filled up with the senior-most serving male of the clan to which the deceased belonged and, generally, he who is selected as 'Khullakpa' holds office for life (See Mangthoi Thaimei's; 'An Introduction to Tribal Language and Culture of Manipur', First Published in 1976, at pages 45-48). The 'Khullakpa' is held in great respect but he does not possess absolute powers, akin to a Kuki Chief. The village elders cannot be over-ridden by the 'Khullakpa'. The body of 'village elders' is known as 'Thoubei/Pei' and it is assisted by the 'Khullakpa'. 'Khullakpa' has now received legal recognition in the Manipur (Village Authorities in Hill Areas) Act, 1956, (for brevity, 'the Act of 1956'). Section 3 of the Act of 1956 deals with the constitution of Village Authorities in the hill areas of Manipur. Each such Village Authority is to be headed by an 'Ex-Officio Chairman'. Section 3(4) of the Act of 1956 states that, where there is a Chief or 'Khullakpa' in a village, he shall be the 'Ex-Officio Chairman' of the Village Authority of that village and it is only when there is no such Chief or 'Khullakpa' in the village that the Chairman of that Village Authority should be elected by the members of the Village Authority from amongst themselves. 3. Charoipandongba Village in Senapati District (presently, in Kangpokpi District), is a Zeliangrong Naga Village. 3. Charoipandongba Village in Senapati District (presently, in Kangpokpi District), is a Zeliangrong Naga Village. The name of the village was changed to Pongringlong, vide order dated 28.10.2003 of the Commissioner (Hills), Government of Manipur. The three founding clans in this village were Daimei, Malangmei/Khandangmei and Panmei. The Village Council (Thoubei/Pei) was the apex administrative body, comprising village elders. In so far as this village is concerned, the post of Khullakpa was not treated as a hereditary post, passing from father to son, but was given to the eldest member of one of the three clans. At times, it seems that there was no Khullakpa at all. This is borne out by the fact that its Village Authority was headed by a Khullakpa during certain periods of time and, at others, there was an 'elected' Chairman. Forms of the Returning Officer (Rule-13) dated 14.05.1998 and 02.09.2002, signed by the Election Officer, reflect that Lanlimlung Panmei was elected as the Chairman of the Village Authority of Charoipandongba Village unanimously. Similarly, the Form of the Returning Officer (Rule-13) dated 26.11.2007 reflects that Lungaingam Gonmei was elected unanimously as the Chairman of the Village Authority for Charoipandongba (Pongringlong) Village at that time. 4. It is in this context that the present litigation arises. Gainaichung Malangmei, the appellant/ applicant, claims to be the Khullakpa of Pongringlong Village and, by default, the Chairman of its Village Authority but, Ningtoulung Daimei, respondent No.4 in the appeal, was declared elected as the Khullakpa/Chief of its Village Authority by the Additional Chief Secretary (TA & Hills), Government of Manipur, vide proceedings dated 13.12.2019. 5. Heard Mr. Serto T.Kom, learned counsel for Gainaichung Malangmei, the appellant/ applicant; Mr. S.Nepolean, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State authorities; and Mr. Julius Riamei, learned counsel for Ningtoulung Daimei, respondent No.4 in the writ appeal. 6. Disputes as to the Khullakpa of this village are not of recent origin. Hitherto, Gainaichung Malangmei had claimed the post of Khullakpa of Charoipandongba Village and filed Hill Miscellaneous Case Nos.11 of 1984 and 7 of 1988 before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kangpokpi, to recognize him as such. One Gaichungam Rongmei was shown as the respondent therein. These cases were disposed of by Order dated 21.08.1990. Hitherto, Gainaichung Malangmei had claimed the post of Khullakpa of Charoipandongba Village and filed Hill Miscellaneous Case Nos.11 of 1984 and 7 of 1988 before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kangpokpi, to recognize him as such. One Gaichungam Rongmei was shown as the respondent therein. These cases were disposed of by Order dated 21.08.1990. Therein, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kangpokpi, recorded that the parties had filed joint compromise petition dated 09.08.1990, stating that Gaichungam Rongmei should withdraw his claim over Khullakpaship of Charoipandongba Village and Malangmei Gainaichung Rongmei should be the Khullakpa of the village. He further recorded that after the death of Malangmei Gainaichung Rongmei, the eldest member of their Sagei (clan) would be the Khullakpa of the village. Land Ownership Certificate dated 08.11.2007 was issued by the Sub-Deputy Collector (H/Q), Saitu-Gamphazol, certifying that Chingpong Malangmei, Meidingking Malangmei and Gainaichung Malangmei were the hereditary clan Chiefs/Khullakpas of Pongringlong Village (erstwhile Charoipandongba Village) under Kangchup Circle of Saitu-Gamphazol Sub-Division, Senapati. 7. However, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Saitu-Gamphazol, issued Notification dated 03.04.2008 informing the villagers of Pongringlong Village that the Village Authority election would be held on 05.04.2008. Aggrieved by this notification, Gainaichung Malangmei filed W.P(C) No.256 of 2008 before the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench. An interim order was passed therein that in the event the Village Authority was constituted pursuant to the impugned notification, no function should be entrusted to it till disposal of the case. However, this interim order was vacated on 28.08.2008. Thereupon, the Government of Manipur issued Order dated 04.10.2008, declaring that one Lungaingam was elected as the Chairman of the Village Authority. Assailing the said order, Gainaichung Malangmei filed W.P(C) No.826 of 2008 before the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by a learned Judge, holding that there were serious disputed questions of fact as to who was the Khullakpa of Pongringlong Village and directing Gainaichung Malangmei to approach the competent Civil Court for a decision thereon. Aggrieved thereby, he filed WA No.52 of 2009. This appeal was allowed by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, vide order dated 05.02.2010. Aggrieved thereby, he filed WA No.52 of 2009. This appeal was allowed by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, vide order dated 05.02.2010. The Division Bench recorded therein that Gainaichung Malangmei had produced photocopies of the Hill House Tax Register (Touzi) of Pongringlong Village from 1980 to 2007 along with Hill House Tax receipts for the years 1980, 1990, 1991, 1992, 2005 and 2007, wherein his name was shown as the Khullakpa of Pongringlong Village. The Division Bench also took note of the message dated 31.01.2008 of the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati District, to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Saitu-Gamphazol, wherein the name of Gainaichung Malangmei was shown as Khullakpa of Pongringlong Village. However, the stand of the authorities before the Division Bench was that elections had been held to the Village Authority of Pongringlong Village during the years 1994, 1998, 2002 and 2007 and it was pointed out that Gainaichung Malangmei never disputed the election of different persons as Chairmen of the Village Authority of Pongringlong Village at those times. Anyhow, the Division Bench noted the settled legal position that there cannot be election to the post of Chairman of the Village Authority if there was a regular Khullakpa in the village and directed Gainaichung Malangmei and Lungaingam to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati District, who was, in turn, directed to conduct an inquiry to ascertain whether Gainaichung Malangmei was the Khullakpa of the village or somebody else. This exercise was to be completed within a time frame and if Gainaichung Malangmei was found to be the Khullakpa of the village, necessary steps were directed to be taken to appoint him as the Ex-Officio Chairman of the Village Authority and, if not, the Deputy Commissioner was directed to hold an election for the Village Authority of Pongringlong Village according to law. 8. Pursuant to the aforestated direction, the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati, held an inquiry and passed Order dated 07.12.2011, recognizing Gainaichung Malangmei as the Khullakpa of Pongringlong Village. As a consequence, he stated that he was the Ex-Officio Chairman of the Village Authority. Perusal of the order reflects that the Deputy Commissioner did not base his judgment on customary law as, in his opinion, its veracity could not be established as it was not codified. As a consequence, he stated that he was the Ex-Officio Chairman of the Village Authority. Perusal of the order reflects that the Deputy Commissioner did not base his judgment on customary law as, in his opinion, its veracity could not be established as it was not codified. He also added the rider that his decision was purely in the domain of revenue administration and would have no bearing on execution of developmental schemes, for which the village may, by majority, decide the right agency for implementation. 9. Significantly, the Under Secretary (Hills), Government of Manipur, addressed letter dated 04.07.2012 to the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati, referring to his Order dated 07.12.2011 and stating that payment of Hill House Tax by Gainaichung Malangmei, i.e., from 1980 to 2009 as recorded in para 5 of the order appeared to be contradictory to copies of the Hill House Tax Payment Receipts received in the Tribal Affairs & Hills Department for the said period. The Manipur State Register of Hill House Tax (Touzi) from 1995 to 2012 is produced before this Court and it reflects that D.Lanirei, Lanlimlung and Lungaingam Gonmei made payments of Hill House Tax for Charoipandongba /Pongringlong Village for the years 1995, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. 10. While so, on 18.01.2013, the Additional Chief Secretary (TA & Hills), Government of Manipur, issued proceedings on the strength of the Order dated 07.12.2011 of the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati, and the orders of the Gauhati High Court in Contempt Case(C) No. 82 of 2012 and in Writ Appeal No.52 of 2009, whereby he modified the earlier order dated 04.10.2008 by cancelling the declaration in respect of Lungaingam Gonmei being the Chairman of Pongringlong/Charoipandongba Village Authority and notifying Gainaichung Malangmei as the Khullakpa of Pongringlong /Charoipandongba Village and the Ex-Officio Chairman of its Village Authority. Thereafter, Notification dated 07.10.2014 was issued by the Principal Secretary (TA & Hills), Government of Manipur, according approval to the declaration of the elected members of the Village Authority of Pongringlong Village. Therein, Gainaichung Malangmei was shown as the Chief (Khullakpa)/Ex-Officio Chairman. 11. Prior thereto, Lungaingam Gonmei and others filed Original Suit No.1 of 2012/2/2012 before the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Manipur West at Lamphelpat, against Gainaichung Malangmei and 76 others for declarations; permanent injunctions and consequential reliefs. Therein, Gainaichung Malangmei was shown as the Chief (Khullakpa)/Ex-Officio Chairman. 11. Prior thereto, Lungaingam Gonmei and others filed Original Suit No.1 of 2012/2/2012 before the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Manipur West at Lamphelpat, against Gainaichung Malangmei and 76 others for declarations; permanent injunctions and consequential reliefs. One declaration sought was that Gainaichung Malangmei was the illegal and unlawful Khullakpa of Pongringlong (Charoipandongba) Village. A permanent injunction was sought to restrain the defendants from interfering with Lungaingam Gonmei and his successors-in-office from functioning as the elected Chairmen of Pongringlong Village Authority. A permanent injunction was also sought to restrain Gainaichung Malangmei from entering into the office of the Khullakpa and acting as the Khullakpa of Pongringlong Village. Another declaration was sought that the order dated 07.12.2011 of the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati, and the earlier orders of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kangpokpi, dated 12.08.1990 and 21.12.1990 were fraudulent, without jurisdiction, illegal, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs. Lungaingam Gonmei and the other plaintiffs also filed Judicial Miscellaneous Case No.3 of 2012/20 of 2012 in the suit under Order 39 Rules 1, 2 and 3 CPC praying for a temporary injunction restraining Gainaichung Malangmei and his men from interfering with Lungaingam Gonmei and his successors-in-office from functioning as the elected Chairmen of Pongringlong Village Authority; to restrain Gainaichung Malangmei from entering into the office of the Khullakpa of Pongringlong Village; and to restrain the authorities from recording Gainaichung Malangmei's name in the Touzi and other Government-related beneficial/developmental schemes. However, by order dated 08.08.2013 passed in this miscellaneous case, the Trial Court held against the plaintiffs. Thereby, the Trial Court directed that the order dated 07.12.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati, in compliance with the Order dated 05.02.2010 of the Gauhati High Court in WA No.52 of 2009, shall continue to operate. 12. The suit seems to have been transferred thereafter to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Senapati, and the plaintiffs filed Judicial Miscellaneous Case No.37 of 2017 therein, seeking leave to withdraw the suit with liberty to file afresh, if required. This miscellaneous case was ordered by the Trial Court on 01.08.2018. 12. The suit seems to have been transferred thereafter to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Senapati, and the plaintiffs filed Judicial Miscellaneous Case No.37 of 2017 therein, seeking leave to withdraw the suit with liberty to file afresh, if required. This miscellaneous case was ordered by the Trial Court on 01.08.2018. Perusal of the said order reflects that Lungaingam Gonmei had claimed that there was peace and tranquility in the village after the 'Thoubei/Pei' reinstated the system of Khullakpa and Khunbu in the village according to the time-honoured Kabui customary law and, as such, the suit had become infructuous and was not maintainable in the present form. The Trial Court permitted withdrawal of the suit, granting liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, if required, subject to payment of costs. Significantly, the order also referred to a counter-claim having been filed in the suit by the defendants and the Trial Court permitted the same to continue for contest. However, there is no indication from the material placed on record as to what was the nature of the counter-claim and as to what happened to it ultimately. 13. Long before the dismissal of the suit, the Commissioner (TA & Hills), Government of Manipur, issued Order dated 28.09.2016, in the name of the Governor of Manipur, according approval to the recognition of Lanirei Daimei as the Khullakpa of Pongringlong Village and as the Ex-Officio Chairman of its Village Authority. The order recorded that the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati, vide letter dated 31.08.2016, had recommended the name of Lanirei Daimei as Khullakpa/Chief of Pongringlong Village. It further recorded that as per the Report dated 30.05.2016 of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Saitu-Gamphazol, Pongringlong Village comprised 175 households and there were 162 job-card holders, including the present Khullakpa. It was further recorded that there were two groups in the village; one supporting the Khullakpa and the other, against him. The majority households, being 131 in number, were stated to be against the Khullakpa and they formed a Development Committee after due approval from the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati, vide letter dated 26.10.2015. The order further recorded that the present Khullakpa had the support of only 31 households and had reportedly shifted to a neighbouring village, viz., Puandaijang Village, and he had given consent, by way of a 'no objection certificate', to the shifting of the job-card holders. The order further recorded that the present Khullakpa had the support of only 31 households and had reportedly shifted to a neighbouring village, viz., Puandaijang Village, and he had given consent, by way of a 'no objection certificate', to the shifting of the job-card holders. Order dated 18.09.2012 was stated to have been issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Saitu-Gamphazol, recording that Petition dated 01.08.2012 was received from Dimthaojang Malangmei for recognition of Puandaijang Village (Charoipandongba Part-II) and an enquiry report was submitted by the Lower Division Clerk, Kangchup Circle, confirming that the petition was genuine and that there were 22 (twenty-two) taxable houses in the new village. The Sub-Divisional Officer accordingly allowed establishment of Puandaijang Village (Charoipandongba Part-II) with Dimthaojang Malangmei as its Khullakpa/Chief and he directed entries to be made in the Touzi. The list of 31 job-card holders transferred from Pongringlong Village to Puandaijang Village manifests that Gainaichung Malangmei figured at Sl.No.27 therein. Accordingly, in supersession of the earlier order dated 07.10.2014 and in exercise of powers conferred by the Act of 1956, the Governor of Manipur accorded approval to recognition of Lanirei Daimei as the Khullakpa of the village and Ex-Officio Chairman of its Village Authority. 14. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 28.09.2016, Gainaichung Malangmei filed W.P(C) No.934 of 2016 before this Court. Prior thereto, W.P(C) No.428 of 2015 was filed by Pongringlong (Charoipandongba) Hill Village Authority, represented by the Ex-Officio Chairman (Khullakpa), viz., Gainaichung Malangmei, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to implement the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) through the said Village Authority in the interest of the villagers. Both these writ petitions were disposed of by one of us, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.V.Muralidaran, vide common judgment and order dated 13.09.2019. Therein, the learned Judge noted the sequence of events, set out supra, and also the stand of the authorities that there was a dispute between two groups in the village as set out in the order. According to the authorities, the majority of 131 households in the village were against Gainaichung Malangmei They further stated that a representation was received from the villagers of Pongringlong for appointment of Khullakpa and the Sub-Divisional Officer was instructed to conduct an inquiry into the matter. Having done so, he submitted Inquiry Report dated 28.03.2016. According to the authorities, the majority of 131 households in the village were against Gainaichung Malangmei They further stated that a representation was received from the villagers of Pongringlong for appointment of Khullakpa and the Sub-Divisional Officer was instructed to conduct an inquiry into the matter. Having done so, he submitted Inquiry Report dated 28.03.2016. Further, a General Body Meeting was held of all the villagers of Pongringlong Village on 17.01.2016, by the Village Court, and it was unanimously resolved to make Lanirei Daimei the Khullakpa and Gaichungrei Daimei the Khunbu, as per traditional norms. The authorities stated that implementation of developmental activities, including MGNREGS, and smooth functioning of the village administration was in turmoil as Gainaichung Malangmei was not recognized or supported by majority of the villagers. On these grounds, the authorities justified the order dated 28.09.2016. Lanirei Daimei also filed a reply, pointing out that Gainaichung Malangmei was removed from Khullakpaship by the majority of the villagers and the Thoubei at its General Body Meeting held on 17.01.2016. This was due to violation of the customary practice of Zeliangrong Nagas of not marrying within the clan, as he had married his uncle's daughter within the prohibited degree. Per contra, it was the stand of Gainaichung Malangmei that the order dated 28.09.2016 was passed without giving him notice and in violation of the principles of natural justice. He pointed out that the earlier orders dated 18.01.2013 and 07.10.2014 of the authorities had recognized him as the Khullakpa and they had not been cancelled in a manner known to law. The learned Judge accepted his first ground of attack and noted that the impugned order dated 28.09.2016 did not disclose issuance of any notice or personal hearing being given to Gainaichung Malangmei. Pausing for a moment, it appears that the learned Judge was not apprised of the fact that the suit filed by Lungaingam Gonmei was dismissed as withdrawn under order dated 01.08.2018 as the learned Judge proceeded under the assumption that the said suit was still pending. The learned Judge opined that passing of the impugned order by the authorities, despite being party to the pending suit, could not be countenanced and all the more so, as it was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned Judge accordingly invalidated the order dated 28.09.2016. The learned Judge opined that passing of the impugned order by the authorities, despite being party to the pending suit, could not be countenanced and all the more so, as it was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned Judge accordingly invalidated the order dated 28.09.2016. Significantly, the learned Judge noted that Pongringlong Village was an ancient Kabui village which sometimes had a hereditary Khullakpa and sometimes an elected Chairman for its Village Authority and, therefore, in order to give a quietus to the controversy between the two groups in the village and in the interest of justice, the learned Judge observed that it would be appropriate to direct the authorities to conduct an election for the Village Authority (Khullakpa) of Pongringlong Village in accordance with law and ultimately issued a direction to do so within a time frame. 15. At this stage, it may be noted that the post of Chairman of the Village Authority is separate and distinct from the post of Khullakpa of a village. If there is a Khullakpa of a village, he becomes the Ex-Officio Chairman of its Village Authority automatically under Section 3(4) of the Act of 1956, but not vice versa. Therefore, the terms 'Chairman of the Village Authority' and 'Khullakpa of the village' are not always interchangeable. 16. Pursuant to the judgment and order dated 13.09.2019 in so far as it pertained to W.P(C) No.934 of 2016, the authorities issued Order dated 04.11.2019 directing that the election should be held in terms thereof. Aggrieved thereby, Gainaichung Malangmei filed M.C.{W.P(C)} Nos. 279 and 288 of 2019 in the disposed of W.P(C) No.934 of 2016. His prayer therein was to stay the operation of the order dated 04.11.2019 and to amend the judgment and order dated 13.09.2019 to the effect that 'Khullakpa' should not be included in the election, as he had already been recognized as the Ex-Officio Chairman/ Khullakpa of Pongringlong Village. Both the miscellaneous cases were dismissed as withdrawn on 15.11.2019. In para No.5 of the said order, the learned Judge recorded that Gainaichung Malangmei could challenge the judgment and order dated 13.09.2019 either by way of an appeal or by way of a review but, without doing that, he had filed miscellaneous applications for modification which were not maintainable. The learned Judge accordingly permitted withdrawal of both the miscellaneous cases with liberty. The learned Judge accordingly permitted withdrawal of both the miscellaneous cases with liberty. Thereupon, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kangchup Geljang, issued Notice of Election dated 22.11.2019 notifying that the Village Authority Election/Khullakpa would be held in respect of Pongringlong (Charoipandongba) Village as per rules on 28.11.2019. Three officials were named for that purpose and they were directed to ensure proper recording/ conducting of the proceedings of the election. Assailing the Notice dated 22.11.2019, Gainaichung Malangmei filed W.P(C) No.948 of 2019 before this Court. This writ petition was dismissed by order dated 28.11.2019. Perusal of the said order reflects that the learned counsel who appeared for Gainaichung Malangmei informed the Court that he was not aggrieved with the common judgment and order dated 13.09.2019 passed in W.P(C) Nos.934 of 2016 and 428 of 2015. According to the learned counsel, the directions of this Court had been misconstrued by the authorities and they had wrongly issued the Notice dated 22.11.2019, directing election of the Khullakpa of Pongringlong Village. The learned Judge thereupon noted the concession of both sides that the post of Khullakpa was a hereditary post and the Khullakpa of a village can be removed by the clan members or by the Village Court. The learned Judge also noted the admitted position that when there is a Khullakpa for a village, he automatically becomes the Ex-Officio Chairman of its Village Authority. As the impugned Notice dated 22.11.2019 indicated that the election was to take place to the Village Authority and as it was the claim of Gainaichung Malangmei that he was the Khullakpa of the village, the learned Judge observed that he would then automatically become the Ex-Officio Chairman of its Village Authority as per customary practices and usages. The learned Judge therefore opined that he had filed the writ petition only on an apprehension that he may not be made the Khullakpa. As no cause of action had arisen for Gainaichung Malangmei to approach the Court at that stage, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition. However, liberty was given to him to approach the competent forum having jurisdiction if, for any reason, the elected Village Authority acted in violation of customary practices and usages. 17. The election was then held by the authorities and Ningtoulung Daimei was elected. However, liberty was given to him to approach the competent forum having jurisdiction if, for any reason, the elected Village Authority acted in violation of customary practices and usages. 17. The election was then held by the authorities and Ningtoulung Daimei was elected. Order dated 13.12.2019 was issued by the Additional Chief Secretary (Tribal Affairs & Hills), Government of Manipur, according approval to the declaration of the elected members of the Village Authority and Ningtoulung Daimei as the Khullakpa/Chief. Aggrieved thereby, Gainaichung Malangmei filed W.P(C) No.103 of 2020 before this Court. That writ petition was dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court on 11.02.2020. It is against this order that Gainaichung Malangmei filed Writ Appeal No.12 of 2020, presently under consideration. 18. During the course of hearing of this appeal, this Court was informed that the judgment and order dated 13.09.2019 had attained finality and it was argued that it was not open to Gainaichung Malangmei to re-open any issue covered thereby and, more particularly, the direction to hold an election. Taking a cue therefrom, Gainaichung Malangmei filed M.C (WA) No.70 of 2022 seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the judgment and order dated 13.09.2019, in so far as it pertained to W.P(C) No.934 of 2016. The said miscellaneous case was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court, vide Order dated 04.04.2022. Therein, the Division Bench observed that Gainaichung Malangmei was well aware of the fact that the judgment and order dated 13.09.2019 caused him injury and that was the reason why he sought modification thereof by filing miscellaneous cases. However, he did not choose either to file an appeal or a review after the miscellaneous cases were withdrawn with liberty to do so. The Division Bench also noted that Gainaichung Malangmei had gone on record during the hearing of W.P(C) No.948 of 2019 that he had no grievance with the judgment and order dated 13.09.2019 and, therefore, it was not open to him to retract therefrom or claim ignorance of law by blaming his former counsel. M.C.(WA) No.70 of 2020 was accordingly dismissed on the ground that Gainaichung Malangmei had disentitled himself from seeking indulgence in overlooking the delay on his part in filing the said appeal due to his past conduct and for clear lack of good and sufficient cause for the delay. 19. M.C.(WA) No.70 of 2020 was accordingly dismissed on the ground that Gainaichung Malangmei had disentitled himself from seeking indulgence in overlooking the delay on his part in filing the said appeal due to his past conduct and for clear lack of good and sufficient cause for the delay. 19. Further, the Division Bench also noted in its order that Gainaichung Malangmei's attempt to maintain a separate challenge against the consequential Notice dated 22.11.2019 came to naught in W.P(C). No. 948 of 2019 and it was observed that he did not choose to take the matter further by filing an appeal. Taking a cue from this observation, Gainaichung Malangmei now filed M.C.(WA) No.73 of 2022 seeking condonation of the delay of 71 days in filing an appeal against the order dated 28.11.2019 passed in W.P(C) No.948 of 2019. 20. In effect, Writ Appeal No.12 of 2020 and MC (WA) No.73 of 2022 now figure for consideration before this Court. Perusal of the order dated 11.02.2020 passed in W.P(C)No.103 of 2020, presently under appeal in WA No.12 of 2020, reflects that the learned Judge took note of the sequence of events, set out supra, and observed that the direction in the judgment and order dated 13.09.2019 in W.P(C) No.934 of 2016 was not to hold an election to the post of Khullakpa and was to be understood as a direction to hold election only to the Village Authority of Pongringlong Village. The learned Judge was also of the opinion that the authorities misinterpreted this direction and issued Notice of Election dated 22.11.2019, stating that the Village Authority election/Khullakpa would be held as per rules. The learned Judge observed that the contention of Gainaichung Malangmei's counsel to the effect that the post of Khullakpa is a hereditary one and that it cannot be subjected to election by the authorities was correct and pointed out that there was no provision in the Act of 1956 to hold such an election. The learned Judge observed that the contention of Gainaichung Malangmei's counsel to the effect that the post of Khullakpa is a hereditary one and that it cannot be subjected to election by the authorities was correct and pointed out that there was no provision in the Act of 1956 to hold such an election. Having said so, the learned Judge took note of the fact that the election of a Khullakpa was held pursuant to the Notice of Election dated 22.11.2019, which was issued in compliance with the judgment and order dated 13.9.2019, and though the said Notice of Election dated 22.11.2019 was challenged by Gainaichung Malangmei in W.P(C) No.948 of 2019, this Court declined to interfere and it was not possible for him to sit in appeal over the same. The learned Judge further observed that it was unfortunate that the authorities, in purported compliance with the direction of this Court, consciously violated the law, which may set a bad precedent. The learned Judge, having made these observations, observed that he had no option but to dismiss the writ petition and accordingly did so. 21. Mr. Serto T.Kom, learned counsel, would contend that the authorities erred in holding an election to the post of Khullakpa, which is governed entirely by customary traditions and norms. He would point out that the Act of 1956 makes no provision to hold such an election and, therefore, the election of Ningtoulung Daimei to the post of Khullakpa, as declared by the order dated 13.12.2019 of the Additional Chief Secretary (TA & Hills), Government of Manipur, is unsustainable in law. Per contra, Mr. S.Nepolean, learned Government Advocate, would point out that the judgment and order dated 13.09.2019 in W.P(C) No.934 of 2016 specifically directed that the authorities should conduct an election for the 'Village Authority of Khullakpa Pongringlong (Charoipandongba) Village' in accordance with law. He would, therefore, assert that the action of the authorities in holding the election, culminating in the order dated 13.12.2019 of the Additional Chief Secretary (TA & Hills), Government of Manipur, is lawful and valid. Supplementing this argument, Mr. Julius Riamei, learned counsel, would point out that the post of Khullakpa of Pongringlong Village was not a hereditary one, as traditionally understood, and the customary Village Court, viz., Thoubei, would ordinarily nominate the Khullakpa of the village. Supplementing this argument, Mr. Julius Riamei, learned counsel, would point out that the post of Khullakpa of Pongringlong Village was not a hereditary one, as traditionally understood, and the customary Village Court, viz., Thoubei, would ordinarily nominate the Khullakpa of the village. He would point out that the past history of the village clearly demonstrated that there were disputes galore as to who was the Khullakpa of the village and assert that Gainaichung Malangmei could not claim to have been appointed for life, ignoring the fact that there was several elected Ex-Officio Chairmen for the Village Authority of Pongringlong Village, which would not have been the case had there been a Khullakpa in office. He would therefore contend that election of Ningtoulung Daimei could not be found fault with. 22. Having considered the above rival contentions in the backdrop of the past history, this Court is of the considered opinion that the post of Khullakpa must be treated as a post that is solely governed by customary norms and traditions as it was not a post created by the Act of 1956. The recognition conferred upon the said post by the Act of 1956 was only to the extent of declaring that if there is a Khullakpa for a village, he would automatically become the Ex-Officio Chairman of its Village Authority, under Section 3(4). This statutory provision also manifests that it is only if there is no Khullakpa in a village that an election would be held to the post of Ex-Officio Chairman of its Village Authority from amongst the members of such Village Authority. Though the customary law of these indigenous tribes may not have been codified, there is sufficient history and tradition to show that the post of Khullakpa in this village was not treated as a hereditary post, in terms of a son invariably succeeding his father. Customarily, the post seems to have been conferred upon the eldest serving male of the clan, as decided by the council of village elders, viz., the Thoubei/Pei. It is also established that, though a Khullakpa, once nominated, would ordinarily hold the post for life, it would still be open to the Thoubei/Pei to remove him from such office on the ground of disqualification or incapacity. It is also established that, though a Khullakpa, once nominated, would ordinarily hold the post for life, it would still be open to the Thoubei/Pei to remove him from such office on the ground of disqualification or incapacity. This being the correct position, it was not open to the authorities to take advantage of the direction of this Court to hold an election in accordance with law and misconstrue the use of the word 'Khullakpa' in the operative portion of the said direction, so as to hold an election for the post of Khullakpa of this village. 23. That being said, it may also be noted that though Gainaichung Malangmei asserts that he is the Khullakpa of the village and was holding the post since his recognition as such as long back as in the year 1990, there is no getting over the fact that there were several elected Chairmen of the Village Authority of Pongringlong Village since then. Lanlimlung Panmei, Lungaingam Gonmei and Lanirei Daimei seem to have been elected to the post at different points of time and there is no explanation forthcoming as to how such elected Chairmen held office if Gainaichung Malangmei continued as the Khullakpa of the village. Had that been so, he would have automatically become the Chairman of its Village Authority and there would have been no necessity to hold an election to that post. To compound matters further, it has also been brought on record that Gainaichung Malangmei was removed from the post of Khullakpa by the competent body, viz., the Thoubei/Pei and the villagers of Pongringlong Village on the ground that he had violated the tradition of not marrying within the clan. There is no rebuttal in this regard from Gainaichung Malangmei. Further, there is material to show that Pongringlong Village was split up and several households shifted to Puandaijang Village. Gainaichung Malangmei was one amongst those who moved to this village and the impact thereof on his claim to Khullakpaship of Pongringlong Village would require deeper study. 24. There is no rebuttal in this regard from Gainaichung Malangmei. Further, there is material to show that Pongringlong Village was split up and several households shifted to Puandaijang Village. Gainaichung Malangmei was one amongst those who moved to this village and the impact thereof on his claim to Khullakpaship of Pongringlong Village would require deeper study. 24. Though Gainaichung Malangmei approached the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, on the issue of his Khullakpaship of the village by way of W.P(C) No.826 of 2008, which culminated in Writ Appeal No.52 of 2009 and the judgment dated 05.02.2010 passed therein, there was never a clear finding to the effect that he was actually nominated as the Khullakpa of the village by the Thoubei/Pei and that he would hold that office for life. Further, as already noted hereinabove, if he was removed from the said post as per customary norms, he can no longer lay a claim to the post. Thus, his present claim that he is the Khullakpa of the village is open to question and doubt and unless he secures a declaration to that effect from a competent forum, after putting all concerned on notice and adducing sufficient evidence, this Court cannot now accept his unilateral assertion that he continues to be the Khullakpa of Pongringlong Village. Too much water has flown under the bridge since he secured recognition as the Khullakpa of Pongringlong Village from the authorities long, long ago. 25. Thus, as matters stand, this Court cannot recognize Gainaichung Malangmei as the Khullakpa of Pongringlong Village and, in consequence, the Ex-Officio Chairman of its Village Authority. As a corollary, the election of Ningtoulung Daimei as the Ex-Officio Chairman of Pongringlong Village Authority, in the absence of a Khullakpa, cannot be held to be bad in law. However, as already noted supra, these two posts are not interchangeable always and it is only when there is a Khullakpa that he would automatically become the Chairman of its Village Authority. If there is no Khullakpa, the elected person would become the Chairman of the Village Authority but, by default, he does not become the Khullakpa of the village. Therefore, the election of Ningtoulung Daimei to the post of Chairman of the Village Authority of Pongringlong would not automatically clothe him with the status of the Khullakpa of Pongringlong Village. If there is no Khullakpa, the elected person would become the Chairman of the Village Authority but, by default, he does not become the Khullakpa of the village. Therefore, the election of Ningtoulung Daimei to the post of Chairman of the Village Authority of Pongringlong would not automatically clothe him with the status of the Khullakpa of Pongringlong Village. The order dated 13.12.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary (TA & Hills), Government of Manipur, however declares him to be the Khullakpa/ Chief. The said order, to the extent that it declares Ningtoulung Daimei as the Khullakpa/Chief of Pongringlong Village Authority, would therefore have to be read down to mean that Ningtoulung Daimei is elected only to the post of Ex- Officio Chairman of the Village Authority of Pongringlong Village and no more. 26. In so far as the disputed post of Khullakpa of Pongringlong Village is concerned, it is left open to Gainaichung Malangmei or any other person laying a claim thereto to approach the competent Civil Court for a declaration of his status as such with evidence and by putting all concerned on due notice. 27. Writ Appeal No.12 of 2020 is accordingly disposed of modifying the order dated 13.12.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary (TA & Hills), Government of Manipur, by reading it down to mean that Ningtoulung Daimei has been duly elected only to the post of Ex-Officio Chairman of the Village Authority of Pongringlong Village and not to the post of Khullakpa/Chief of Pongringlong Village. Liberty is given to those laying claim to the post of Khullakpa of Pongringlong Village to approach the competent forum, as indicated hereinbefore. 28. In the light of the disposal of WA No.12 of 2020, clarifying the position with regard to the scope of an election under Section 3(4) of the Act of 1956, there is no purpose served in entertaining an appeal at this late stage against the judgment in W.P(C) No.948 of 2019. In consequence, MC (WA) No.73 of 2022 filed for condonation of delay in filing such an appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.