Manipur High Court
Awang Kongpal Kongkham Leikai ... vs The State Of Manipur Represented By The on 18 October, 2022
Author: M.V. Muralidaran
Bench: M.V. Muralidaran
SHAMURAILATPAM Digitally signed by
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA
SUSHIL SHARMA Date: 2022.10.19 13:35:37 +05'30'
Page |1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Crl.Rev. P. No. 11 of 2021
Awang Kongpal Kongkham Leikai Development
Committee, under Regd. No. 472/SR(IE)/2014,
having its registered address at Awang Kongpal
Kongkham Leikai, near DDK Imphal in Imphal East
District, Manipur, P.O. & P.S.- Porompat,
represented by its Secretary namely Thokchom
Sarat Singh aged about 51 years, S/o (L) Th.
Jugeshore Singh of Kongpal Kongkham Leikai, P.O.
& P.S.-Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur, Pin
No. 795005.
........Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the
Commissioner/ Secretary (Revenue),
Government of Manipur, Office at Old
Secretariat Imphal, P.O. & P.S.- Imphal, Imphal
West District, Manipur- 795001.
2. The Commissioner/Secretary (PHED),
Government of Manipur and its Office at
Secretariat Office, Babupara, Imphal West, Pin
No. 795001;
Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021
Page |2
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East District,
Manipur and its Office at Porompat, Imphal
East, Manipur-795005;
4. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Imphal East and
its Office at Porompat, Imphal East, Manipur-
795005;
5. The Chief Engineer, Govt. of Manipur and its
Office at Khuyathong PWD Complex, Imphal,
Manipur-795001.
........Official Respondents
6. The Keystone Pvt. Ltd. being Regd.
U45200TG2005PTCO45334 and its registered Office at House No. 8-2-338/6, Road No. 3, Panchavati Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500634, Telangana India and its present address is at M.G. Avenue, Thangal Bazar, P.O.
- Imphal, P.S.- City, Imphal West, Manipur- 795001.
...........Private Respondent BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN For the Petitioners :: Mr. Ajoy Pebam, Advocate For the Respondents :: Mr. H. Samarjit, Addl. PP Mr. Th. Tolapishak, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021
Page |3
Date of Hearing and
reserving Judgment & Order :: 04.07.2022
Date of Judgment & Order :: 18.10.2022
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 401 read with Section 397 and 398 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 28.9.2020 in Eviction Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.1 of 2020 passed by the fourth respondent under Section 133 Cr.P.C. read with Section 15 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960.
2. Heard Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. H. Samarjit, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State and learned counsel for the sixth respondent.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of piece of homestead land under Patta No.23/296, Imphal East Tahasil, Porompat Sub- Division, covered by C.S. Dag No.31/597 measuring an extent of 0.90 acre Ingkhol Class situated at 23-Khongkham Leikai Revenue Village and the said land has been occupying by the petitioner without any disturbances from all quarters. Kongpal Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 Page |4 Makha Kongkham Leikai Development Committee formed by the localities of Kongpal Makha Kongkham Leikai was the owner of the land in question and the revenue records stood in the name of Kongpal Makha Kongkham Leikai. Later on, the name was changed into the present petitioner's name in consonance with the name of Awang Kongpal Kongkham Leikai Development Committee.
4. Further case of the petitioner is that the land in question is recorded in the name of the petitioner in the relevant land records during survey and the petitioner has been paying land revenue regularly since 1964 to till date. Prior to the recording in the Jamabandhi Patta as Awang Kongpal Kongkham Leikai Development Committee, the land measuring an extent of 0.43 acres under Imphal East Tahasil situated at 23-Khongkham Leikai Revenue Village was recorded as Kongpal Makha Kongkham Leikai in the chitta. However, the petitioner has been in possession of an area of 0.90 acre of the said land and accordingly, the revenue officials have corrected the area of the land in question from 0.43 acre to 0.90 acre during survey.
Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021
Page |5
5. According to the petitioner, the members of the petitioner have been possessing and enjoying the said land by constructing 5 semi-pucca shop buildings and rented out to different individuals for their business purpose for the last many years. While so, on 28.9.2020 at about 7.30 P.M., without giving any prior notice, a team of police personal of Porompat Police Station came at the land in question and asked for removal of the structure constructed at the said land and when the petitioner asked for producing any documents regarding the removal of the structure from the said land, they failed to produce any documents and left immediately. On 29.9.2020 at about 9.30 A.M., the officials of the fourth respondent along with police personnel without giving prior notice to the petitioner and the tenants caused the impugned conditional order dated 28.9.2020 in Eviction Cril. Misc. Case No.1 of 2020 under Section 133 Cr.P.C. read with Section 15 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 and started demolition of five shops and also other two vacant room buildings thereby dispossessed the petitioner from the said land. Thereafter, the said land was enclosed and bounded with C1 sheet brought by them and dispossessed illegally. Assailing the said action of Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 Page |6 the fourth respondent and its officials, the present criminal revision petition has been filed.
6. Opposing the petition, the respondents 1,3 and 4 filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that as per the letter dated 28.9.2020 submitted by the Director, Settlement and Land Records, Manipur, the land covered by C.S. Dag No.31 measuring an extent of 59.17 acre situated at revenue village No.23/Kongkham Leikai is a Sarkari Khas and that one club namely Kongpal Student Club has been recorded in remark column No.18 of Dag chitta as an encroacher for an area of 3.32 acre. Further, in the said letter, there is no allotment order issued by the Government in favour of Awang Kongpal Kongkham Leikai Development Committee. Therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition. No right whatsoever of the petitioner has been violated by the impugned order. Rather by false claim and baseless assertion, the petitioner is hindering the development works and pubic interest. The grounds raised in the petition for challenging the impugned order are not at all maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021
Page |7
7. The sixth respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the sixth respondent is the work agency and they have been awarded contract for construction of integrated water supply project for Imphal Planning Area Phase-III at the estimated cost of Rs.231,46,20,000/- and two years period was fixed for completion of the work from the date of issuance of the work order. Accordingly, the sixth respondent started work since 21.10.2020, however, stopped the construction works from 23.6.2021 in compliance of the interim order dated 30.4.2021 passed by this Court. It is stated that the criminal revision petition is devoid of merits and the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought in the criminal revision petition.
8. Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without verification of the land in question and without issuing prior notice, the impugned conditional order dated 28.9.2020 has been issued by the fourth respondent despite knowing the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the land and revenue records stood in the name of the petitioner. He would submit that before or at the time of initiating the eviction case, the fourth respondent never issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and its tenants. As such, the Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 Page |8 conditional order dated 28.9.2020 was not made in accordance with law and therefore is not sustainable in the eye of law.
9. The learned counsel further submitted that the land in question is under the possession of the petitioner and its tenants, as the name of the petitioner is still mentioned in the records maintained by the revenue department. Moreover, the officials of the revenue department are collecting revenue tax from the petitioner till date.
10. The learned counsel urged that after the demolition of structures constructed over the land in question, the respondents 2 and 5 through the sixth respondent initiated construction of water reservoir over the said land and still the construction is going in full swing.
11. The learned counsel next submitted that the act of omission on the part of the fourth respondent to draw up a preliminary order, which is a sine qua non for initiating proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. and without following the procedure provided for by Section 138 Cr.P.C., the impugned conditional order made by the fourth respondent is not sustainable and is vitiated. In fact, the fourth respondent Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 Page |9 erred in not properly appreciating the effect of non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of drawing up a preliminary order before proceeding under Section 133 Cr.P.C. Thus, the conditional order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be dismissed, as without adherence to the principles of natural justice, the said order has been passed.
12. Per contra, Mr. H. Samarjit, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the official respondents submitted that the present criminal revision petition was filed belatedly on 28.4.2021 after a gap of nearly 7 months with no explanation for the delay. He would submit that till date the petitioner is unable to produce any allotment order to establish that the petitioner is the lawful owner of the piece of land and that the so called Jamabandi produced by the petitioner is fake as per available land records. The latest Dag chitta shows that the piece of land still stands as Government land.
13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the petitioner, assuming to be true owner, has been cheating poor people whom they had taken as tenants and collected rent from them while at the same time stalling the Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 P a g e | 10 completion of the water supply project. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, following the eviction notice, eviction had been carried out and a construction work started for construction of a water supply project and that by the time the petitioner filed this criminal revision petition, half of the work was completed and the remaining work stalled after the petitioner obtained an interim order from this Court.
14. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that in certain cases the principles of natural justice need not be strictly followed as in the instant case where the petitioner has approached this Court with fake Jamabandi. When balanced with public interest like a drinking water supply project like in the present case and the unsubstantial claim of the petitioner the balance of justice need to tilt in favour of public interest and not the selfish claim of the petitioner.
15. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor added that taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances and the documents produced on record, the Court may reject the claim of the petitioner in order to protect and promote public interest and basic necessity of life like the provision of clean drinking water in and around the District Headquarters of Imphal Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 P a g e | 11 East, a growing town area in the heart of Imphal. Thus, a prayer is made to dismiss the criminal revision petition.
16. Mr. Th. Tolapishak, the learned counsel for the sixth respondent submitted that the sixth respondent is the work agency of the work called "Water Supply Project for Manipur State (SH: Integrated Water Supply Project for Imphal Planning Area Phase-III, Package: IWS P-II (W)" and the work order was issued on 20.5.2020 by the Executive Engineer of Water Supply Maintenance Division-II, PHED, Manipur. Accordingly, an agreement dated 10.7.2020 was executed between the respondent State and the sixth respondent. Pursuant to the work order and the agreement, the sixth respondent started the construction works since 21.10.2020. However, as per the interim order of this Court dated 30.4.2021, the work has been stopped.
17. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record.
18. The grievance of the petitioner is that they are the lawful owners of the homestead land covered under C.S. Dag No.31/597 measuring an extent of 0.90 acre and the members Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 P a g e | 12 of the petitioner have constructed five shop buildings over the land and leased out to tenants. It is submitted that the petitioner is paying tax to the land in question. While so, without giving any prior notice, the fourth respondent started demolition of structures over the land in question. According to the petitioner, the impugned conditional order dated 28.9.2020 was issued without following the provisions of law.
19. On the other hand, it is the first and foremost plea of the respondent State that challenge to the conditional order dated 28.9.2020 was made belatedly and that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the criminal revision petition.
20. Admittedly, the conditional order impugned in this criminal revision petition was passed on 28.9.2020 and the criminal revision petition challenging the said order was filed on 28.4.2021, almost after a delay of 7 months. The delay in filing the criminal revision petition has not been properly explained by the petitioner. If really the petitioner is aggrieved by the eviction notice, it ought to have filed the criminal revision petition immediately. However, the petitioner failed to do so, which itself proves that the petitioner has no valid right over the land in question. In view of the failure of proper explanation Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 P a g e | 13 forthcoming from the side of the petitioner in not approaching the Court immediately after passing the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has slept over the matter for more than 7 months and had filed the criminal revision petition belatedly.
21. Coming to the challenge made to the impugned conditional order dated 28.9.2020, the case of the petitioner is that the homestead land covered by C.S. Dag No.31/597 measuring an extent of 0.90 acre Ingkhol Class situated at 23- Khongkham Leikai Revenue Village is a private property recorded in the name of the petitioner and, as such, the respondents, particularly the fourth respondent, do not have any jurisdiction to issue the impugned order under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. or under Section 15 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960.
22. Though the petitioner contended that the land under Patta No.23/296 (New), Imphal East Tahasil, Porompat Sub-Division covered by C.S. Dag No.31/597, measuring 0.90 acre Ingkhol Class situated at 23-Khongkham Leikai Revenue Village is a private property belongs to the petitioner, nothing has been produced to prove the same.
Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021
P a g e | 14
23. The petitioner claims that prior to the recording in the Jamabandi patta as Awang Kongpal Kongkham Leikai Development Committee, the land measuring an area of 0.43 acre was recorded as Kongpal Makha Kongkham Leikai in the Dag chitha and taking note of the possession of the area of 0.90 acre by the petitioner, the official has corrected the area of land in question from 0.43 acre to 0.90 acre. The said plea has not been substantiated by production of documents.
24. On a perusal of the Dag Chitha annexed to the criminal revision petition, this Court finds that at column No.1, the C.S. Dag number has been mentioned as 31/179(A) and extent has been mentioned as 43 acre. The notice impugned refers C.S. Dag No.31/597 under new Patta No.295 of 25- Kongkham Leikai Revenue Village. The Dag chitha referred by the petitioner refers to C.S. Dag No.31/179(A), which clearly shows that the Dag Chitha referred by the petitioner is not related to the land in question. Anyhow, as stated supra, the respondent authorities initiated action to remove the encroachment in the land covered by C.S. Dag No.31 measuring an extent of 59.17 acre. Therefore, whatever the Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 P a g e | 15 encroachment in C.S. Dag No.31, the respondent authorities have taken action to remove the same.
25. It is the say of the respondent State that the Director of Settlement and Land Records addressed a letter to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Imphal East stating that the land covered by C.S. Dag No.31 measuring an extent of 59.17 acre situated at No.23-Kongkham Leikai is Sarkari Khas and lot of encroachments were made on the said land, including the club namely Kongpal Student Club, Kongpal Porompat DC Road encroached an area of 3.32 acre. Pursuant to the letter of the Director of Settlement and Land Records, the fourth respondent issued the impugned conditional order directing the encroachers to remove the kutcha structures put up on the land in C.S. Dag No.31.
26. According to the petitioner, the omission on the part of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Porompat to draw up a preliminary order, which is a sine qua non for initiating proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. and without following the procedure provided for by Section 138 Cr.P.C., the order made by the said authority directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment/obstruction is unsustainable. Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021
P a g e | 16
27. The guns of Section 133 go into action wherever there is public nuisance. The public power of the Magistrate under the Code is a public duty to the members of the public who are victims of the nuisance, and so he shall exercise it when the jurisdictional facts are present. "All power is a trust - that we are accountable for its exercise - that, from the people, and for the people, all springs and all must exist." The conduct of the trade must be injurious in presenti to the health or physical comfort of the community. There must, at any rate, be an imminent danger to the health or the physical comfort of the community in the locality in which the trade or occupation is conducted. Unless there is such imminent danger to the health or physical comfort of the community in the locality in which the trade or occupation is conducted. Unless there is such imminent danger to the health or physical comfort of that community or the conduct of the trade and occupation is in fact injurious to the health or the physical comfort of that community, an order under Section 133 cannot be passed. A conjoint reading of Sections 133 and 138 of the Code discloses that it is the function of the Magistrate to conduct an enquiry and to decide as to whether there was reliable evidence or not to come to the conclusion to act under Section 133.
Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021
P a g e | 17
28. Section 133 of Cr.P.C. deals with maintenance of public order and tranquillity. It is a part of the heading "public nuisance". The term "nuisance" as used in law is not a term capable of exact definition and it has been pointed in out in Halsbury's Laws of England that:
"even in the present day there is not entire agreement as to whether certain acts or omissions shall be classed as nuisances or whether they do not rather fall under other divisions of the law of tort."
29. Nuisance is an inconvenience which materially interferes with the ordinary physical comfort of human existence. It is not capable of precise definition. To bring in application of Section 133 of Cr.P.C., there must be imminent danger to the proper and consequential nuisance to the public. The nuisance is the concomitant act resulting in danger to the life or property due to likely collapse, etc. The object and purpose behind Section 133 is essentially to prevent public nuisance and involves a sense of urgency in the sense that if the Magistrate fails to take recourse immediately, irreparable danger would be done to the public. It applies to a condition of the buisance at the time when the order is passed and it is not Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 P a g e | 18 intended to apply to future likelihood or what may happen at some later point of time. It does not deal with all potential nuisances and on the other hand applies when the nuisance is in existence. It has to be noted that sometimes there is confusion between Section 133 and Section 144 of Cr.P.C. While the latter is more general provision the former is more specific. While the order under the former is conditional, the order under the latter is absolute [See State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Limited, (2003) 7 SCC 389].
30. On a perusal of the impugned order dated 28.9.2020, it has been stated that pursuant to the letter of the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East District, the Director of Settlement and Land Records conducted enquiry and reported that the land covered by C.S. Dag No.31 measuring an extent of 59.17 acre situated at Revenue Village No.23 Kongkham Leikai is a "Sarkari Khas" and also reported one club namely "Kongpal Student Club, Kongpa lPorompat DC Road, Imphal East District has been recorded in the remark column No.18 of Dag chitha as an encroacher for an area 3.32 acre and further reported that 5 (five) individuals were also encroached upon C.S. Dag No.31. The impugned order also indicates that it has Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 P a g e | 19 now become necessary to remove the structures put up in C.S. Dag No.31 at the earliest, as the same has not only caused nuisance to the public, but also cause hindrance to the development works to be taken up by the Government.
31. As per Section 15 of the of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, any person who occupies or continues to occupy any land belonging to the Government without lawful authority shall be regarded as a trespasser and may be summarily evicted therefrom by the competent authority and any building or other construction erected or anything deposited on such land, if not removed within such reasonable time as such authority may from time to time fix for the purpose, shall be liable to be forfeited to the Government and to be disposed of in such manner as the competent authority may direct. In the present case, the petitioner was occupying the land belonging to the Government without lawful authority and therefore, the competent authority under the provisions of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 has initiated action against the petitioner and similar encroachers who encroached upon the Government land in C.S. Dag No.31 measuring an extent of 59.17 acres. Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021
P a g e | 20
32. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the non-passing of preliminary order before initiating proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. is not vitiated the impugned conditional order, as the action of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Porompat to remove the encroachments in C.S. Dag No.31 measuring an area of 59.17 acre was pursuant to the list of encroachers furnished by the Director of Settlement and Land Records, Manipur, which is the authority maintaining the land records in respect of Government Khas and having found that Sarkari Khas in C.S. Dag No.31 has been encroached by the encroachers, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Porompat rightly issued the impugned conditional order. Thus, exercising jurisdiction under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 15 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, the fourth respondent issued the impugned order thereby directing the encroachers to remove the encroachments/ obstructions caused by the kutcha structures.
33. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned conditional order as well as the proceeding being Eviction Cril. Misc. Case No.1 of 2020 passed by the fourth respondent is ultra vires the provisions of Section 133 Cr.P.C. Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021
P a g e | 21 and executed without following the procedure provided by Section 138 Cr.P.C.
34. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that presuming the process for eviction is proceeded as per Section 15 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, the respondent authorities have to follow Rule 18 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1961. But in the instant case, the respondent authorities never served show cause notice either under the provision of Cr.P.C., or under the provision of Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960.
35. It is also the submission of the petitioner that the principles of natural justice has been violated before issuance of the impugned conditional order and that violation of a rule of natural justice results in arbitrariness which is the same as discrimination; where discrimination is the result of the State action, it is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, a violation of a principle of natural justice by a State action is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon number of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Since law is Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 P a g e | 22 well settled that the principles of natural justice is an integral part of the guarantee of equality assured by Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners have not been stated and/or elaborated further.
36. There is also no quarrel over the proposition of the Hon'ble Apex Court that violation of a rule of natural justice results in arbitrariness which is the same as discrimination and violation of a principle of natural justice by a State action is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
37. In Aligarh Muslim University and others v. Mansoor Ali Khan, (2000) 7 SCC 529, the Hon'ble Apex Court held:
"21. As pointed recently in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 237 there can be certain situations in which an order passed in violation of natural justice need not be set aside under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For example where no prejudice is caused to the person concerned, interference under Article 226 is not necessary. Similarly, if the quashing of the order which is in breach of natural justice is Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 P a g e | 23 likely to result in revival of another order which is in itself illegal as in GaddeVenkateswara Rao v. Govt. of A.P., AIR 1966 SC 828 it is not necessary to quash the order merely because of principles of natural justice."
38. It is always not necessary for Courts to strike down an order merely because such order has been passed in breach of natural justice. In cases where the facts are not at all admitted or beyond dispute, there is considerable unanimity that the Courts can in exercise of their discretion refuse certiorari, prohibition, mandamus or injunction even though natural justice is not followed.
39. Admittedly, the petitioner is rank encroacher of the land of Government and the petitioner has not produced any title documents to prove that the land in question belongs to them. The alleged payment of tax to the Government does not confer title over the land in favour of the petitioner.
40. On a perusal of the entire materials available on record, this Court is of the view that the impugned conditional order was passed strictly in accordance with law, as the petitioner and its agents were causing nuisance to the public Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 P a g e | 24 and also causing hindrance to the development work undertaken up by the Government, more particularly, construction of public water supply project in the encroached area. Since the impugned conditional order was passed under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 15 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, under which an encroacher/trespasser has to be summarily evicted.
41. It is pertinent to note that in the land in question i.e. in the encroached area by the petitioner, the respondent authorities have undertaken development work, more specifically, construction of Public Water Supply Project and respondent No.6 is carrying out the construction work after getting the contract from the Public Health Engineering Department, Manipur. It is stated and admitted by the petitioner that they have been removed from the land in question and the structures were also demolished and after removal of the encroachment, half of the construction work was over and pursuant to the interim order of this Court dated 30.4.2021, the remaining work was stopped.
42. Since the exercise to remove the encroachments by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Porompat, in C.S. Dag No.31 Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021 P a g e | 25 measuring an extent of 59.17 acre was under the direction of the Director, Settlement and Land Records, this Court finds no fault either on the respondent State or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who had issued the impugned conditional order dated 28.9.2020.
43. This Court is of the view that the impugned conditional order was passed strictly according to law, as the petitioner and its agents/tenants have caused nuisance to the public by squatting over the land in question. Further, without having any title over the land in question, the petitioner is claiming right on it saying that the property is private property. If really, the land in question is a private property that belongs to the petitioner, nothing prevented the petitioner from producing title documents. No document like assignment in favour of the petitioner has produced in respect of the land in question. In the absence of any title documents in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land in question, the petitioner is an encroacher of the said land, which is a Government Khas. As such, the fourth respondent has rightly issued the impugned conditional order for removal of encroachment and this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order.
Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021
P a g e | 26
44. When the criminal revision petition was taken up for admission, this Court, by the order dated 30.4.2021, passed an interim order directing the respondents 2, 5 and 6 to stop the construction work at the land under C.S. Dag No.31 of 23 Kongkham Leikai till 9.6.2021. It is stated that the said interim order is still continuing.
45. In view of the conclusion arrived at by this Court in the earlier paragraphs that there is no infirmity in the impugned conditional order and the same is sustainable in the eye of law and half of the construction work for water supply project was over, it would be appropriate to vacate the said interim order.
46. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the considered view that no valid ground has been made out to interfere with the impugned conditional order. That apart, as held supra, the criminal revision petition suffers from delay and laches.
47. In the result, (1) The criminal revision petition is dismissed. Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021
P a g e | 27 (2) The interim order dated 30.4.2021, which was extended from time to time, stands vacated.
(3) No costs.
JUDGE FR/NFR Sushil Crl.Rev.P. No. 11 of 2021