Manipur High Court
Smt. Thounaojam Lata Devi vs Shri Takhelmayum Angou Singh on 4 March, 2021
Author: Sanjay Kumar
Bench: Sanjay Kumar
Digitally signed
MAYANG by
MAYANGLAMB
LAMBAM AM CHANU Item No. 2
(Through Video Conferencing)
CHANU NANDINI
Date:
NANDINI 2021.03.05
14:40:23 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
CRP(CRP Art. 227) No. 32 of 2020
Smt. Thounaojam Lata Devi, aged about 58 years, W/o
Th. Ibomcha Singh of Kwakeithel Laishram Leikai, P.O.
Imphal & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
....Petitioner
- Versus -
Shri Takhelmayum Angou Singh, aged about 74 years,
S/o late T. Gokulchand Singh of Top Awang Leikai, P.O.
& P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur.
...Respondent
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR
For the petitioner : Mr. Ng. Somorjit, Advocate
For the respondent : Mr. L. Seityandra, Advocate
Date of hearing & order : 04.03.2021
O R D E R
[1] This revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, arises out of the order dated 03.07.2020 passed in Revenue Revision Case No. 14 of 2020 by the Revenue Tribunal, Manipur at Lamphelpat. The said revenue revision case was filed by the respondent herein under Section CRP(CRP Art. 227) No. 32 of 2020 Page 1 of 3 95 of the Manipur Land Revenue & Land Reforms Act, 1960, assailing the order dated 24.02.2020 passed by the Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal, Sawombung, in Mutation Case No. 112/SC/SWG/2020. By the order dated 03.07.2020, the Revenue Tribunal stayed and set aside the impugned order dated 24.02.2020 passed in Mutation Case No. 112/SDC/SWG/2020 till the disposal of Civil Appeal Case No. 5 of 2020 pending before the learned District Judge, Imphal East.
[2] By order dated 27.11.2020, this Court stayed the operation of the order dated 03.07.2020, presently under revision. [3] Heard Mr. Ng. Somorjit, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. L. Seityandra, learned counsel for the respondent. [4] The order under revision reflects that only the learned counsel for the petitioner in the revenue revision case was heard by the Revenue Tribunal on 03.07.2020 and the petitioner therein was directed to take necessary steps within 5 (five) days' time, made returnable on 29.07.2020. Therefore, the revenue revision still remained pending for due consideration and adjudication. That being so, the Revenue Tribunal could not have set aside the impugned order dated 24.02.2020. It could only have stayed its operation pending the disposal of the main case. The use of the words 'is hereby stayed and set aside' in the order under revision therefore conveys an erroneous impression as nothing would remain in the revenue revision case if the order impugned therein is already set aside.
CRP(CRP Art. 227) No. 32 of 2020 Page 2 of 3 [5] On the above analysis, this Court sees no reason to delve into the merits of the pending revenue revision case as it would be for the parties thereto to address all the issues arising therein before the Revenue Tribunal in the first instance. In effect, it would suffice at this stage if the order under revision is modified to the extent of making it clear that the order dated 24.02.2020 passed in Mutation Case No. 112/SDC/SWG/2020, the subject matter of Revenue Revision Case No. 14 of 2020 before the Revenue Tribunal, is only stayed pursuant to the order dated 03.07.2020 and is not set aside.
It is for the Revenue Tribunal to consider the issues arising in the revenue revision case on their own merits and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to both sides, and take a final decision as to the fate of the impugned order dated 24.03.2020 passed in Mutation Case No. 112/SDC/SWG/2020.
The revision case is disposed of accordingly.
There shall be no order as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE bipin CRP(CRP Art. 227) No. 32 of 2020 Page 3 of 3