Manipur High Court
Khaidem Tamar Singh vs Smt. Thingujam Ongbi Monika on 15 November, 2022
Author: Sanjay Kumar
Bench: Sanjay Kumar
LAIREN Digitally
signed by Item No. 26 & 27
MAYUM LAIRENMAYU
M INDRAJEET
INDRAJ SINGH IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
EET
Date:
2022.11.16 AT IMPHAL
09:40:55
SINGH +05'30'
CRP (CRP.Art.227) No. 19 of 2016
Khaidem Tamar Singh, aged about 52 years, S/o (L) Kh. Amujao
Singh of Khurkhul Makha Leikai, P.S. Sekmai, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
....Petitioner
- Versus -
1. Smt. Thingujam Ongbi Monika, aged about 37 years,
W/o Th. Surbino Singh of Khurkhul Makha Leikai,
P.S. Sekmai, Imphal West District, Manipur.
2. Shri Yumlembam Noren Singh, aged about 43 years,
S/o Y. Chandra Singh of Sekmai Yumlembam Leikai
P.S. Sekmai, Imphal West District, Manipur.
...Respondents
With CRP(CRP.Art.227) No. 20 of 2016 Khaidem Tamar Singh, aged about 52 years, S/o (L) Kh. Amujao Singh of Khurkhul Makha Leikai, P.S. Sekmai, Imphal West District, Manipur.
....Petitioner
- Versus -
1. Smt. Thingujam Ongbi Monika, aged about 37 years, W/o Th. Surbino Singh of Khurkhul Makha Leikai, P.S. Sekmai, Imphal West District, Manipur.
2. Shri Yumlembam Noren Singh, aged about 43 years, S/o Y. Chandra Singh of Sekmai Yumlembam Leikai P.S. Sekmai, Imphal West District, Manipur.
...Respondents 2 BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR 15.11.2022 Parties being common and issues interconnected, these civil revision petitions, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, are amenable to final disposal by way of this common order.
The case of the petitioner in these two revision cases is that he is the owner of the paddy land measuring an area of 0.74 acre under Patta No. 41/56/219 (New) I.W.T. covered by C.S. Dag No. 96 situated at Village No. 41
- Loitang Khunou. According to him, when he went to the office of the Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal West (North), Sekmai, on 06.05.2014 to pay revenue taxes in respect of this land, he was informed that mutation had been carried out in relation thereto by the Sub-Deputy Collector, Sekmai, under Order dated 23.02.2013 in Mutation Case No. 267/SDC/Sekmai/IW and Order dated 17.07.2013 passed in Mutation Case No. 1084/SDC/Sekmai/IW. In consequence, the name of the petitioner was substituted by the name of respondent No. 1 herein and thereafter, the name of respondent No.1 was substituted by the name of respondent No. 2. Claiming that he was never put on notice or given an opportunity of hearing by the Sub-Deputy Collector, Sekmai, and alleging that no enquiry was held prior to the change in the record of rights, the petitioner approached the Revenue Tribunal, Manipur. However, as there was delay on his part in filing revision cases under the provisions of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, he filed petitions to condone the said delay. Revenue Misc. Case No. 51 of 2014 was filed by him seeking condonation of the delay of 400 days in filing a revision against the 3 mutation order dated 23.02.2013. Revenue Misc. Case No. 52 of 2014 was filed by him to condone the delay of 400 days in filing a revision against the mutation order dated 17.07.2013. By separate orders dated 04.04.2016, the Revenue Tribunal, Manipur, dismissed both the miscellaneous cases. Aggrieved thereby, he is before this Court. CRP (CRP.Art.227) No. 19 of 2016 arises out of the order passed in Revenue Misc. Case No. 52 of 2014 while CRP (CRP.Art227) No. 20 of 2016 pertains to the order passed in Revenue Misc. Case No. 51 of 2014.
Heard Mr. Kh. Santa, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. H. Dijen, learned counsel for respondent No. 1; and Mr. T. Rajendra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.
Perusal of the order dated 04.04.2016 passed in Revenue Misc. Case No. 52 of 2014 reflects that it was dismissed on the short ground that Revenue Misc. Case No. 51 of 2014 was already dismissed. The order dated 04.04.2016 passed in Revenue Misc. Case No. 51 of 2014 manifests that the Tribunal was of the opinion that the petitioner could not claim knowledge of the mutation only from 06.05.2014 as he was present before the Sub-Deputy Collector, Sekmai, as recorded in the first mutation order, and affixed his signature on the order sheet in the presence of a witness. On this ground, the Tribunal opined that the petitioner could not claim that the said mutation order was passed behind his back and without his knowledge. Therefore, his claim that that he came to know of the mutation order only on 06.05.2014 was not accepted and the Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous case with costs.
The specific ground taken by the petitioner in Revenue Misc. Case No. 51 of 2014 was that the said mutation order was passed behind his back by 4 the Sub-Deputy Collector, Sekmai, in collusion with the staff of his office and without giving any notice/opportunity of hearing to him. In the light of this specific allegation, the contents of the mutation order had to be tested before they could be relied upon as the biblical truth. The Tribunal therefore erred by straightaway believing what was stated in the mutation order, i.e., the presence of the petitioner and his signature therein, and treating the same as grounds to impute knowledge of the mutation order to him. Whether he was actually present before the Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal West, Sekmai, on the fateful day and whether he affixed his signature in the order sheet are matters to be looked into in the revision case, if the same is taken on file. The Tribunal should have limited itself to seeing whether sufficient explanation was offered for the delay and no more. As the approach adopted by the Tribunal practically put the cart before the horse, the orders under revision cannot be sustained.
CRP (CRP.Art.227) No. 19 of 2016 & CRP (CRP.Art.227) No. 20 of 2016 are accordingly allowed, setting aside the orders dated 04.04.2016 passed by the Revenue Tribunal, Manipur, in Revenue Misc. Case No. 51 of 2014 & Revenue Misc. Case No. 52 of 2014. The said revenue miscellaneous cases shall stand restored to the file of the Tribunal for consideration afresh. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter and it is for the Tribunal to consider the condone delay petitions on their own merits and in accordance with law after hearing both sides.
In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE Indrajeet