Manipur High Court
Shri Bhagwati Prashad vs The State Of Manipur Represented By The ... on 18 January, 2022
Author: M.V. Muralidaran
Bench: M.V. Muralidaran
Page |1
JOHN Digitally signed
by JOHN TELEN IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
TELEN KOM
Date:
AT IMPHAL
2022.01.20
KOM 15:00:23 +05'30'
WP (C) No. 151 of 2008
1. Shri Bhagwati Prashad, aged about 71 years, S/o. Late
Ram Tapeshwar Sahu, President, Shree Mahavir
Mandir Telipati Sebait, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Porompat,
Imphal East District, Manipur.
2. The Vaishya Youth Club, having Regd. No. 1126 of
1972, represented by it's Shri Sitaram Shahu, aged
about 50years, S/o. Late Baliram Sahu of Telipati, P.O.
Imphal, P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur.
..... PETITIONERS
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner
/ Secretary (Arts & Culture), Government of Manipur,
Imphal.
2. The Commissioner (Revenue), Government of
Manipur.
3. The Superintendent of Archaeology, Government of
Manipur.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East District,
Manipur.
5. The Director of Arts & Culture, Government of Manipur.
6. Ahanthem Irabot Meetei, aged about 57 years, S/o late
A. Brajamohon Meetei, Secretary, Maichou Ningshing
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014
and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015
Page |2
Meetei, Ukhrul Road, Lamlong Bazar, Imphal East,
Lamlong, PS Porompat.
... RESPONDENTS
WP (C) No. 857 of 2014
1. Shri Bhagwati Prashad, aged about 77 years, S/o.
(Late) Tapeshwar Sahu, President, Shree Mahavir Mandir Telipati Sebait, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur.
2. The Vaishya Youth Club Having Regd. No. 1126 of 1972, represented by its Secretary Shri Sitaram Shahu, aged about 56 years, S/o. (Late) Baliram Sahu of Telipati, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur.
..... PETITIONERS
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner / Secretary (Arts & Culture), Government of Manipur, Imphal.
2. The Commissioner (Revenue), Government of Manipur.
3. The Superintendent of Archaeology, Government of Manipur.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East District, Manipur.
5. The Director of Arts & Culture, Government of Manipur.
... RESPONDENTS WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 Page |3 WP (C) No. 124 of 2015
1. Shri Bhagwati Prashad, aged about 77 years, S/o.
(Late) Tapeshwar Sahu, President Shree Mahavir Mandir Telipati Sebait, P.O. Imphal & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur.
2. The Vaishya Youth Club Having Regd. No. 1126 of 1972, represented by its Secretary Shri Sitaram Sahu, aged about 56 years, S/o. (Late) Baliram Sahu of Telipati, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur.
..... PETITIONERS
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner / Secretary (Arts & Culture), Government of Manipur.
2. The Commissioner/ Secretary (Revenue), Government of Manipur.
3. The Superintendent of Archaeology, Government of Manipur.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East District, Manipur.
5. The Director of Arts & Culture, Government of Manipur.
... RESPONDENTS BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN For the Petitioners :: Mr. M. Hemchandra, Sr. Advocate WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 Page |4 Mr. Juno Rahman S., Advocate For the Respondents :: Mr. M. Rarry, Addl. AG Mr. M. Rakesh, Advocate for the respondent No. 6 in WP(C) No. 151 of 2008.
Date of Hearing and
reserving Judgment & Order :: 24.11.2021
Date of Judgment & Order :: 18.01.2022
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
W.P. (C) No.151 of 2008 has been filed by the
petitioners to quash the order dated 14.11.2007 and to direct the respondents to refrain from taking any action in connection with the setting up of a historical monument site at Telipati area of Khurai, Imphal East District.
2. W.P.(C) No.857 of 2014 has been filed by the petitioners to quash the notification bearing No.5/24/99-S(AC) of the Commissioner (Arts and Culture), dated 7.9.2000 published in the Manipur Gazette on 11.2.2013 corresponding to the notification dated 15.1.2000 published on 28.1.2000 as arbitrary and to direct the respondents to refrain from taking any action, in connection with the setting up of a historical monument site at Telipatti area of Khurai, WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 Page |5 Imphal East District in view of the notification dated 7.9.2000 to protect the principle of rule of law.
3. W.P.(C) No.124 of 2015 has been filed by petitioners seeking to quash the impugned order dated 24.1.2015 as the same was issued with material irregularities, arbitrary and non-application of mind and to direct the respondents to refrain from taking any action/arrangement/process in pursuance of the said order.
4. Since the issue involved is one and the same, all three writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common order.
5. The case of the petitioners is that Teli community are inhabitants of Telipati area, Khurai, Imphal East District, Manipur since time immemorial and most probably around 1872, the Maharaja of Manipur donated the Mahavir Mandir Complex located at Telipatti for construction of Mahavir Mandir. In the trace map No.102, the actual size where the Mahavir Mandir is located is shown in Dag No.33. Since 1872, the Mahavir Mandir Complex is maintained and looking after by the villagers of Telipatti and using as a place of worship and as such the plot of land measuring about 19 acres under Dag No.33 was registered in the name of the President WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 Page |6 of Mahavir Mandir Telipatti Shebait Bhagwati Prasad. Jamabandi/Patta was also issued in the name of Mahavir Mandir Telipatti Shebait Bhagwati Prasad.
6. Mahavir Mandir complex is used by the Shebaits and the villagers of Telipatti as a place of worship and for the purpose connected without any disturbance/interference from any quarter. While so, the respondents, on the pressure of some vested groups of people, declared the Telipati area as protected historical site of Khurai Ahongpung. Further, the respondents without following the procedures laid down in Sections 2(b)(v), 4(1) to (3), Section 13 and 20 of the Manipur Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological sites and Remains Act, 1976 and Rules 3(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of the Manipur Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological sites and Remains Rules, 1979 declared the Telipati area as the protected historical monument site of Khurai Ahongpung. According to the petitioners, the respondents without complying with the procedures laid down in Sections 4(1), 5(1), 6(1), 7, 8 and 9 of the Land Acquisition Act issued the impugned order dated 14.11.2007. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed W.P.(C) No.151 of 2008 before the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench and the Gauhati High Court passed status quo order regarding the nature WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 Page |7 and possession of the land described i.e. the alleged Khurai Ahongpung Telipatti site.
7. The respondent State while filing counter-affidavit in W.P.(C) No.151 of 2008, enclosed the notification dated 7.9.2000 and the corresponding notification dated 15.1.2000 which are in gross violation of natural justice and therefore, the same are challenged in W.P.(C) No.857 of 2014. On 5.11.2014, this Court passed an interim order to maintain status quo as regards petitioners' possession. According to the petitioners, O.S.No.37 of 2014 has been filed before the Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.II, Imphal East and in Judicial Misc. Case No.333 of 2014, the Learned Civil Judge has passed an order to keep status quo of the suit lands i.e. Khurai Ahongpung Telipati in respect of the possession of the petitioners. While things stood thus, pending the aforesaid two writ petitions, the Superintendent of State Archaeology issued the impugned order dated 24.1.2015, thereby notifying further the Khurai Ahongpung, a State protected historical site and is open to all the devotees and may be used for normal prayer from 6 am to 5 pm daily. Challenging the same, W.P.(C) No.124 of 2015 has been filed by the petitioners.
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 Page |8
8. The respondents in W.P.(C) No.151 of 2008 filed counter stating that the land under Dag No.33 of village No.100 of Telipatti is recorded as State Khas land as per records maintained by the Revenue Department and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to file the writ petition against the respondents. It is stated that in case of dispute about said land between the petitioners and the respondents, the matter is to be decided by the Deputy Commissioner under MLR and LR Act, 1960 and not by the High Court and the decision made by the Deputy Commissioner is final. As per report of the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East dated 21.8.1999, the name of pattadar of Khurai Ahongpung has been made for protection of historical monument and sites. Since various disputed facts are involved, the same are to be resorted only through civil suits and the High Court cannot entertain it in the present form.
9. It is stated in the counter that Khurai Ahongpung is an important historical site and it is regarded as sacred and holy by the Manipuris and since the time immemorial, the Maharajas of Manipur performed pooja every year by deputing Pandits and the same practice is still continuing. The ritual is performed on every 1st Saturday of Meitei month Lamda for every year. According to the respondents, the State Government has enough jurisdiction under WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 Page |9 the Manipur Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1976 (for short, "Act of 1976") to acquire the historical site if any in order to protect and preserve the same in the interest of general public. The said Khurai Ahongpung is an important historical site and therefore, it has been rightly and lawfully preserved by the State Government.
10. It is stated that the respondents issued notice dated 15.1.2000 as per the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act of 1976 calling objections from the interested persons if any within two months from the date of issue of notification for protecting the area of Khurai Ahongpung and there is no illegality in protecting the said area under the said Act. The said area is to be expanded within the Sarkari Khas land as per the Government revenue records and accordingly, the Revenue Department has also clarified the said land as Government Khas land under C.S.Dag No.17 and 19. Vide notification dated 7.9.2000, the said site itself declared as protected area. Since the expansion of Khurai Ahongpung is within the Sarkari Khas land, it does not affect any of the surrounding pattadars. The demarcation order was in continuation of previous protection order of the said Khurai Ahongpung and it does not violate the provisions of the Act of 1976.
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 10
11. It is stated in the counter that Khurai Ahongpung is located since the time immemorial and every year Pandit Loisang is performing ritual ceremonies there. There are four pungs (mounds) located at four directions of Imphal valley during ancient time and Khurai Ahongpung signified northern boundary and such historical important place needed for protection. The Government has no intention of renaming of Mahavir temple complex into Ahongpung. The notification dated 14.11.2007 was in continuation of the order dated 7.9.2000 in connection with the protection of Khurai Ahongpung and therefore, there is no illegality in issuing the said order and it is quite lawful and binding to the petitioners.
12. The private respondent No.6 in W.P.(C) No.151 of 2008 filed counter stating that in the year 2000, recognizing the historical and archaeological important of Khurai Ahongpung, the respondent State, after following due process of law declared the area measuring .10 acre in all under Dag No.33 and 34 of Revenue Village No.100, Telipati as historical monuments/sites of the said Khurai Ahongpung under Section 4(3) of the Act of 1976. As per Rule 5 of the Manipur Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1979 (for short, "Rules of 1979"), the Superintendent of Archaeology is duty bound to demarcate the area appearing in the WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 11 notification and to cause necessary pillars and fencings to be fixed for preservation of the protected monument. The Superintendent of Archaeology instead of exercising his power and duty under Rule 5, approached the Secretary of Seva Samiti, Telipati with the letter imploring for comment and objection stating that his office is planning to expand the area of Khurai Ahongpung to the northern site from the existing area without mentioning anything about demarcation of the existing area declared by the order dated 7.9.2000. The site plan clearly shows that many new complexes namely Santoshi, Hanuman Mandir, Shiva Mandir, Pooja Hall and Club have been shown inside the said protection site of Khurai Ahongpung.
13. According to the sixth respondent, the then Superintendent of Archaeology namely Bheigya Singh in cahoots with the petitioners have allowed the sanctity and identity of protected site to be encroached and destroyed, without any left and hindrance, even though the site covering .10 acre had been declared as protected monument and site. Though the declaration was made as early as in the year 2000, the Superintendent of Archaeology instead of having the site properly demarcated and have it properly fenced for its preservation under Rule 5, sought to shift the protection site on the northern side by using the impugned order dated 14.11.2007. WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 12 According to the sixth respondent, the impugned order dated 14.11.2007 has been issued to facilitate the setting up of illegal structures, namely Santoshi, Hanuman Mandir, Shiva Mandir, Pooja Hall and Club inside the protected area. The impugned order dated 14.11.2007, which was issued in continuation of the declaration order dated 7.9.2000, is illegal and improper. The protected area of 0.10 acre should be immediately demarcated and properly fenced.
14. It is stated in the counter by the sixth respondent that the impugned order dated 14.11.2007 was issued in violation of the Act of 1976 and Rules of 1979, inasmuch as, the area to be demarcated is not 90 Sq. m. as stated in the impugned order dated 14.11.2007, but the area to be demarcated under Rule 5 is the area measuring 0.10 acre in total as stated in the impugned order dated 7.9.2000.
15. In the counter, the sixth respondent denied that Teli communities are settled at the present site of Telipati, Khurai since time immemorial or around 1872, Maharaja of Manipur gifted the Mahavir Mandir Complex located at Telipati for construction of Mahavir Mandir. In fact, no Mahavir Mandir in the existence inside Dag No.33 at present even though the said Mandir is shown in the remark column of Dag No.33. The Jamabandi and the revenue WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 13 receipt filed by the petitioners are after the issuance of the impugned order dated 7.9.2000. At present, there is no Mahavir Mandir Complex as alleged, however, a new Complex, namely Shri Hanuman Mandir Complex was constructed inside the protected site in violation of Act of 1976. To preserve the protected site, the sixth respondent also submitted a representation. In fact, the letter dated 14.9.2006 was issued on the undue pressure on the behest of the petitioners and also to accommodate and facilitate their illegal encroachment of the protected site. The petitioners cannot equate Khurai Ahongpung with Mahavir Mandir Complex. Hence, the sixth respondent prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 14.11.2007 with a direction to the Superintendent of Archaeology to proceed under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1979 and have the area appearing in the notification dated 7.9.2000 properly demarcated and preserved.
16. In W.P.(C) No.857 of 2014, the respondents 1 to 4 therein filed counter stating that State Government having felt the importance of Khurai Ahongpung started process for declaration of the same as one of the protected area amongst the other. On such process, the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East, after examining the said place where Khurai Ahongpung is lying, had wrote a letter to the WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 14 Superintendent of State Archaeology on 21.8.1999, thereby proposing the said Khurai Ahongpung for protection as an ancient historical monument under the Act of 1976. The Government had also issued notification dated 15.1.2000 showing the intention of the Government to declare the said Khurai Ahongpung as protected historical monument, thereby inviting objections from any interested person within two months. As no objection was raised even after a lapse of 7 months, the Government had issued the impugned order dated 7.9.2000 declaring the said ancient historical monument called Khurai Ahongpung as protected historical monument and sites.
17. It is stated that the land covered by C.S.Dag No.33 is a State Khas land and it is highly questionable under what source of legal right, the name of the first petitioner as President of Mahavir Mandur has been recorded in the Jamabandi and there was no record to show that the said Dag No.33 was allotted to the petitioners by the Government nor has any title deed so that the name of the Mahavir Mandir recorded as owner in the said record of right. Trespassing/encroaching over the said protected area of Khurai Ahongpung in the names of God, Goddess and Deities as now doing by the petitioners and their men and followers, should not be encouraged as it being an illegal act tainted with ill-motive for graving WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 15 the State Khas land, wherein Kuhurai Ahongpung is lying from the time immemorial 33 AD and which has also been protected as historical monument and sites by the Government of Manipur.
18. It is stated that the members of Maichou Ningshing Lup are the worshipers of the said Khurai Ahongpung which is an ancient historical monument and also joined in the prayer ceremony held by Maibas of Pandit Loishang with the present King of Manipur by offering rice, fruits and vegetables every year in the Lamda Thangja for driving out the evil spirits and also for getting boon for prosperity of the people of Manipur etc. There is nothing wrong while initiating some steps for development of the said Khurai Ahongpung in a lawful manner. Since the petitioners and their followers have no right and title over the said land in question, the official respondents 1 to 4 prayed for dismissal of the W.P.(C) No.857 of 2014.
19. It appears that in W.P.(C) No.124 of 2015, the respondents have not filed their counter.
20. Heard Mr.M.Hemchandra Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.Rarry Mangsatabam, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent State. This Court also heard the submission of Mr. M. Rakesh, WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 16 learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent in W.P.(C) No.151 of 2008.
21. The argument of Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned senior counsel for the petitioners is summarized as under:
The petitioners belong to Shebait Teli communities, residing at Telipatti, Khurai and are residing more than 145 years. Around 1872, the then Maharaja of Manipur viz., Chandrakirti Maharaja gifted the Mahavir Mandir Complex located at Telipati for construction of Mahavir Mandir and other Gods and Goddesses namely Kali Mandir, Hanuman Mandir, Durga Mandir, Radha, Krishna Mandir etc. and the location of Mahavir Mandir in the trace map of Hafiz Hatta bearing No.102 is marked as Dag No.33. Since then the Mahavir Mandir Complex is looked after by the villagers of Telipati and has been used as a place of worship.
The plot of land measuring 0.19 acres under Dag No.33 bearing Patta No.132 situated at 100-Telipati, Porompat Sub- Division has been in the name of the President, Mahavir Mandir Telipatti Shebait and the petitioners are in possession WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 17 of the land and having paying the land revenue regularly for last considerable length of years.
The villagers of Telipatti and the Shebaits of the temples have developed the temple ground by filling in each and has elevated the ground level by about 1½ feet about 120 years ago.
The Commissioner (Revenue) without complying the mandatory requirement of law declared the Mahavir Mandir Complex as the alleged historical site arbitrarily, illegally and in contravention of law laid down under Rules 3(1),(2),(3),(4) and (5) of the Manipur Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1979 and thus issued the letter dated 14.9.2006 and the impugned order dated 14.11.2007 and 7.9.2000 by invoking the provisions under Section 4(3) of the Manipur Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1976. The Superintendent of Archaeology declared the Khurai Ahongpung Telipatti, Imphal East to be historical monument and Archaeological site/protected area under Section 4(3) of the Act of 1976 without complying the precondition laid down in the Rules of 1979. Therefore, any consequential order WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 18 dated 7.9.2000 notified on 11.2.2013 in the Manipur Gazette and another conflicting order dated 7.9.2000 notified on 20.7.2002 in the Gazette are liable to be set aside.
Without considering the objections submitted by the petitioner, the Under Secretary, Arts and Culture issued an order dated 14.11.2007 for demarcation of the protected historical monument site measuring 90 sq. m of Khurai Ahongpung. Impugned order dated 14.11.2007 was issued after a gap of more than 7 years.
In fact, the respondents have not complied with the relevant rules and more particularly, Rule 5 Regarding the land in question, the petitioners have filed O.S.No.37 of 2014 before the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.II, Manipur East. In the said suit, an interim order of status quo order was granted on 5.9.2014 in respect of the disputed land i.e. Khurai Ahongpung and possession of the petitioners as on today and the same is waiting for final adjudication.
During the pendency of W.P.(C) Nos.151 of 2008, 847 of 2014 and 124 of 2015, the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East passed an order in Misc. Case No.2 of 2018 thereby declaring WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 19 the disputed land as State land has already been deferred by the Revenue Tribunal by its order dated 18.10.2021 passed in Revenue Revision Case No.42 of 2021 and the same is pending for final adjudication.
The impugned notification dated 7.9.2000 is illegal and the same cannot stand in the eye of law as the respondents have failed to comply the Rules of 1979.
22. In support, learned senior counsel placed reliance upon the following decisions:
(i) J&K Public Service Commission and others v.
Dr.Narinder Mohan and others, (1994) 2 SCC 630.
(ii) Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. Internatinal Airport Authority of India and others, (1979) 3 SCC 489.
(iii) Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and others v. Ananta Saha and others, (2011) 5 SCC 142.
(iv) Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Suga Mill (P) Ltd.
and others, (2003) 2 SCC 111.
23. The argument of Mr. M. Rarry, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent State is summarized as under:
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 20 The non-filing of the order dated 7.9.2000 nor challenging the said order at that point of time on 28.2.2008 was deliberately intentional and malafide as a period of 8 years had already lapsed since 7.9.2000.
The petitioners have approached this court with unclean hands by suppressing the material facts and documents. The writ petition is not a public interest litigation but seeks remedy of infringement of private rights in respect of an order passed by the State Government seeking to demarcate the protected historic monument site measuring 90 sq. metre of Khurai Ahongpung, Imphal East.
Rule 5 of the Rules of 1979 provides causing, demarcation of the site by causing necessary pillars and fencing to be fixed demarcating the area appearing in the notification and requited for preservation of the protected monument. The manner of inquiry provided under Chapter 2, Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules of 1979, before the Ancient Monument or Archaeological site may be declared to be protected is to cause enquiry to the antiquity of the monuments or archaeological sites.
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 21 The age of the said Khurai Ahongpoung is said to be related back to the year of 33 AD and the manner in which it is a monuments or archaeological sites and remains has been submitted in detail.
After the Superintendent of Archaeology considered it sufficient for protection, a proposal was sent to the Government on 6.4.1999 in terms of Rule 3(2) and (3) of Rules of 1979.
The process and enquiry was not only related to Khurai Ahongpung but also Angom Pokpa and Leithom Phatpa. The petitioners have no case to prove that the respondent State not complied with any provision of law in declaring Khurai Ahongpung and two others in declaring as historical sites in Manipur.
The impugned order dated 14.11.2007 clearly mentions the boundary of north, south, east and west as per the schedule in terms of the said site plan. However, the petitioners have not whispered as to how the proposed site plant is going to adversely affects their rights in regard to claim made in the writ petition.
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 22 The main contention and cause of action allegedly set out to file the writ petitions is based on the claim of ownership of the disputed land in question whereby the petitioners claim to be the owner of the land based upon a Jamabandi said to be issued on 3.2.2004 by the Supervisor Kanango, SDC, Porompat.
The petitioners are claiming to be aggrieved persons only based upon their claim of ownership of the land in question in respect of the land covered in C.S.Dag Nos.33 and 34 of Village No.100 of Telepati.
In fact, C.S.Dag Nos.33 and 34 are the State Khas Land and it is not owned by the petitioners in any lawful or legal manner and that the petitioners can no longer to be said to be an aggrieved persons in respect of the declaration or demarcation of land where the historical site where Khurai Ahongpung is situated.
Though the petitioners claim that around 1872, the then Maharaja of Manipur gifted the Mahavir Mandir Complex at the disputed site, the photographs annexed to the writ petitions clearly show that Mahavir Mandir was established in 1960. WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 23 During 1960, the name of the petitioners would have been recorded in Dag Chitha as well as Jamabadi book maintained by the Revenue Department.
On the contrary, the earliest Jamabandi produced by the petitioners is dated 3.2.2004 and the petitioners have not record of any Jamabandi or Dag Chitha pre-dating from 1960, General Survey in the State of Manipur.
The petitioners have failed to show how the mutation in the record was carried out in terms of Section 46(2) of the MLR and LR Act, 1960, which mandates that such mutation entry has to be done on the basis of registered documents transferring rights of immovable properties like sale deeds, gift deeds, etc. As there were no illegalities in issuing the impugned orders, learned Additional Advocate General prays for dismissal of the writ petitions.
24. This Court considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 24
25. The grievance of the petitioners is that they belong to Shebait Teli community and have settled in the site of Telipati, Khurai, Imphal East District for the last 145 years and established temples namely Mahavir Mandir and other Mandirs without any disturbances from any quarters. However, the State Government, vide notification dated 7.9.2000 published in the Manipur Gazette on 11.2.2003, declared that the Khurai Ahongpung Telipati site as protected monuments and sites in total contravention of relevant laws and rules. The further grievance of the petitioners is that without considering the objections submitted by the petitioners, the Under Secretary, Arts & Culture issued the impugned order dated 14.11.2007 for demarcation of the protected historical monuments site measuring 90 Sq. m of Khurai Ahongpoung. According to the petitioners, the impugned orders are in gross violation of natural justice, relevant laws under Manipur Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1976 and the Rules, 1979, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and most importantly to the total disregard of the legal rights of the petitioners or the Teli communities.
26. It is also the case of the petitioners that around 1872, the then Maharaja of Manipur donated the Mahavir Mandir Complex WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 25 located at Telipati for the construction of Mahavir Mandir and other Gods and Goddesses namely Kali Mandi, Hanuman Mandir, Durga Mandir, Radha, Krishna Mandir etc. and accordingly, the Shebait Teli communities constructed the aforesaid Mandirs and since then the Mahavir Mandir Complex is looked after by the villagers of Telipatti and has been used as a place of worship.
27. According to the petitioners, the plot of land measuring 0.19 acres under Dag No.33 bearing Patta No.132 situated at 100- Telipatti has been in the name of the President, Mahavir Mandir Telipatti Shebait and the petitioners are in possession of the land and have been paying the land revenue regularly and in fact, the villagers of Telipati and the Shebaits of the temple has developed the temple ground by filling in earth and has elevated the ground level by 1 ½ feet about 120 years ago.
28. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent State that the land under Dag No.33 of Village No.100 of Telipati is recorded as State Khas land as per the records maintained by the Revenue Department. As per the report of the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East, dated 21.8.1999 that the name of pattadar of Khurai Ahongpung has been made for protection of historical monument and sites as Khurai Ahongpung is an important WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 26 historical site and it is regarded as sacred and holy by the Manipuris and since the time immemorial, the Maharajas of Manipur performed pooja every year by deputing Pandits and the same practice is still continuing.
29. According to the respondent State, the State has enough jurisdiction to acquire historical site, if any in order to protect and preserve the same in the interest of general public. Since Khurai Ahongpung is an important historical site and therefore, it has been rightly and lawfully preserved by the State Government in the interest of general public. In fact, the respondent authorities issued notice on 15.1.2000 as per the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act of 1976 calling objections from the interested persons if any within two months from the date of issue of the said notice for protecting the area of Khurai Ahongpung and before declaring Khurai Ahongpung as historical monument, the respondent authorities have followed all procedures in accordance with the relevant Rules and Act.
30. It is also the case of the respondent State that the area in which Khurai Ahongpung located was to be expanded within the Sarkari Khas land and accordingly, the Revenue Department has clarified the said land as Government Khas land under C.S.Dag Nos.17 and 19 and it does not affect any of the surrounding WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 27 pattadars. The demarcation order dated 14.11.2007 was in continuation of the previous protection order dated 7.9.2000, which was issued after due formalities as required under the Act of 1976. Since the land is in Government Khas, the question of acquisition of the land under the Land Acquisition Act does not arise. According to respondent State, Khurai Ahongpung is located since the time immemorial and every year Pandit is performing ritual ceremonies and in fact there are four Pungs located at four directions of Imphal valley during ancient time and Khurai Ahongpung signified northern boundary and such historical important place needed for protection.
31. In W.P.(C) No.151 of 2008, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 14.11.2007, whereby the Art and Culture Department, directed to demarcate the protected historical monument site measuring 90 Sq. m. of Khurai Ahongpung. In the said order, it has been stated that the same has been issued in continuation of the Government order dated 7.9.2000. Since, both the orders are under challenge, for proper appreciation, the same are extracted herein below:
32. The impugned order dated 14.11.2007 reads thus:
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 28 "ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR OF MANIPUR Imphal, the 14th November, 2007.
No.5/24/99-S(AC): In continuation of this Government order of even number dated 7.9.2000 (copy enclosed for ready reference), the Governor of Manipur is pleased to demarcate the Protected Historical Monument Site measuring 90 Sq m. of Khurai Ahong Pung, Imphal East as per schedule below:-
1.North:- Dag No.19 Khas Land.
2.South:- Hanuman Mandir
3.West:- Khurai Lamlong Bazar Road
4.East:- (i) Patta Land of Smt.Tampha Devi, Wife of (Late) Manilal Teli of Telipati Dag No.17 & 18.
ii) Mani Prasad Teli S/o. (Late) Rashindra Teli of Khurai Telipati Dag No.20."
33. The order dated 7.9.2000, reads thus:
"GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR SECRETARIAT : ARTS & CULTURE DEPARTMENT ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR : MANIPUR Imphal, the 7th September, 2000 WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 29 No.5/24/99-S (AC) : Under Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Manipur Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological sites and Remains Act, 1976, the Governor of Manipur is pleased to declare the following sites in the interest of the public as the historical monuments and archaeological sites, the details of which are given in the attached schedule, as protected monuments and sites."
34. It appears that W.P.(C) No.151 of 2008 was originally filed before Gauhati High Court by the petitioners and the Gauhati High Court, by an order dated 7.3.2008, passed an interim order to the effect that status quo regarding the nature and possession of the land described i.e. Khurai Ahongpung Telipatti site. Similarly, W.P.(C) No.857 of 2014 challenging the order dated 7.9.2000 was filed and this Court by an order dated 5.9.2014 directed to maintain status quo of the suit lands i.e. Khurai Ahongpung Telipati in respect of the possession of the petitioners as on that date.
35. It also appears that in respect of the land measuring 0.19 acre covered by Dag No.33 of Jamabandi in the name of the first petitioner and the land measuring 0.01 acre covered by Dag No.34 standing in the name of the second petitioner, both the WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 30 petitioners have filed O.S.No.37 of 2014 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.II, Manipur East against Ahanthem Irabot Meitei, who is stated to be the Secretary of Maichou Ningshing Lup, Khurai and the President of Khurai Ahongpung Kanba Apunba, which are stated to be unregistered. In the said suit, the petitioners took out an application being Judl. Misc. Case No.333 of 2014 for interim injunction. By the order dated 5.9.2014, the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.II, Imphal East passed an status quo order. The relevant portion of the order is quoted below:
"Hence, keeping of the status-quo of the suit lands in respect of the possession of the plaintiffs/petitioners as on today should be maintained by the both parties and their men, agents and privies till further order."
36. Thus, from the above proceedings, it is clear that with regard to C.S.Dag No.33 and 34, particularly the area where Mahavir Mandir and other Mandirs on one hand and on the other Khurai Ahongpung situate, there was land dispute between the petitioners as one group and persons belonging to Maichou Ningshing Lup on the other. The pendency of the civil suit filed by the petitioners has not been disputed by the respondent State. In fact, in their counter filed in W.P.(C) No.151 of 2008, the respondent State stated that the WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 31 dispute of the land is to be resorted only through civil suits or appropriate proceedings before a competent Courts. For proper appreciation, paragraph 6 of the counter filed in W.P.(C) No.151 of 2008 is extracted hereunder:
"6. .... it is submitted that the dispute of the said land is to be resorted only through Civil Suits or appropriate proceedings before a competent Courts because the matter involves various disputed facts and thus taing of evidence is necessary in order to proof the factum of real ownership and therefore, the Hon'ble High Court has not to entertain it in the present form. The said land is purely recorded as State Khas land."
37. According to the petitioners, the land measuring 0.19 acres under Dag No.33 is registered in the name of the President of Mahavir Mandir Telipati Shebait Shri Bhagwati Prasad and in fact, the SDC, Porompat has issued Jamabandi patta in favour of the said name. Since Shebaits of the Mahavir Mandir Telipati are in possession of the laid in question for long time, it is clear that the said disputed land/plot has been enjoying by the Shebaits of the Mahavir Mandir Telipatti without any interference and conflict from any quarters.
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 32
38. The aforesaid plea has been strongly objected by the respondent State by contending that the petitioners are claiming right over the disputed land in question based on Jamabandi and that too without any supporting claim of having registered document of transfer of the said land in their favour and therefore, in the absence of any valid title deed, the petitioners cannot claim any right over the disputed land. That apart, as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, any document or instrument which purports or intends to create title should be registered and, in case, the same is not registered, it would not affect any immovable property comprised therein or moreover it could not be allowed as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. In support, learned Additional Advocate General relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited though Director v. State of Haryana and another, (2009) 7 SCC 363.
39. It is also the submission of learned Additional Advocate General that Section 49 of the Registration Act makes it clear that a document which is to be compulsorily registered, if not registered, will not affect the immovable property comprised therein in any manner and it will also not be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property, except for certain limited purpose. In WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 33 support, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SMS Tea Estates Private Limited v. Chandmari Tea Company Private Limited, (2011) 14 SCC 66.
40. By relying upon the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, learned Additional Advocate General urged that no immovable property could be relinquished without there being registered document, mutation, if any, conducted on the basis of oral relinquishment/Azadinama as claimed by the petitioners has no bearing on the rights of the State Government being the absolute owner of the land in question.
41. Also by relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sankalchan Jaychandbhai Patel and others v. Vithalbhai Jayachandbhai Patel and others, (1996) 6 SCC 433; Sawarni v. Inder Kaur and others, AIR 1996 SC 2823; Prem Nath Khanna and othrs v. Narinder Nath Kapoor (dead) through legal representatives and others, (2016) 12 SC 235 and Guru Amarji Singh v. Rattan Chand, (1993) 4 SCC 349, learned Additional Advocate General argued that mutation does not confer any title and that the mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. Particularly, WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 34 learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the Jamabandi referred to by the petitioners does not create title over the land in question in favour of the petitioners.
42. It is also the submission of learned Additional Advocate General that Ahanthem Irabot Meetei and Maichou Ningsing Lup, a registered body have filed an application under Section 11(3) of MLR &LR Act to declare the lands under Dag No.33 measuring an area of 0.19 acres and Dag No.34 measuring an area of 0.01 acre in Village No.100-Telipatti as Government land. According to him, the said lands are sacred place of Meitei/Meetei Deity from time immemorial and related with the cultural heritage. In the said application, they have claimed that some of the Sevaits of Shree Shree Mahaveer, a Hindu God and Kalimai Devi, a Hindu Goddess and other individual persons have wrongfully occupied the said lands thereby constructing various semi-pucca structures. It is also the submission of learned Additional Advocate General that the Deputy Commissioner, by the order dated 16.8.2021, declared the land under Dag No.33 and 34 to be Government land as the petitioners herein could not produce any allotment order in their behalf in respect of the said land. Since the said action of the Deputy Commissioner is pending writ petitions that too when the status quo order is in WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 35 operation, the respondent State cannot rely on the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 16.8.2021.
43. It is trite law that mutation does not confer any title and mutation entries are only to enable the State to collect revenues from the persons in possession and enjoyment of the property and the right, title and interest as to the property should be established dehors the entries. In the instant case, though the State contended that the disputed land is State Khas, prima facie, no record has been produced to prove the same.
44. The respondent State contend that the petitioners cannot claim ownership of the disputed land on the basis of the Jamabandi which itself is a product of fraud and that the petitioners are not legally aggrieved in respect of the steps initiated by the State Government relating to the land in question. The respondent State avers that when an issue to be decided in exercise of a writ jurisdiction involves disputed question of facts requiring oral evidence, cross-examination, the proper course would be to relegate the parties to a civil proceedings and such matter are not entertainable in writ jurisdiction.
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 36
45. Whether or not the disputed plot and/or land belongs to the State Khas or it exclusively belongs to the Mahavir Mandir Complex are to be decided by the civil court and in writ jurisdiction the same cannot be decided as it would involve oral and documentary evidence. Since the law is well settled, the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases have not been quoted.
46. Admittedly, with regard to the disputed land and/or plot, civil suit is pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.II, Imphal East, wherein also the Court directed the parties to maintain status quo of the suit lands in respect of the possession of the petitioners herein as on 5.9.2014 by both parties and their men, agents till further orders. There is no dispute between the parties that the said interim order is in operation. When that being so, it would not be appropriate for the writ court to pass any order on this issue or comment upon the order dated 5.9.2014. It is the bounden duty of the parties concerned to keep maintaining the aforesaid order dated 5.9.2014 till the disposal of the civil suit.
47. Coming to the challenge made to the impugned orders dated 14.11.2007 and 7.9.2000, it is seen that the petitioners have challenged the aforesaid two orders in reverse order. In fact, the WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 37 petitioners have first challenged the order dated 14.11.2007 and then 7.9.2000 contending that at the time of filing of the writ petition challenging the order dated 14.11.2007, they had no knowledge about the order dated 7.9.2000 and only when the respondent State filed counter in W.P.(C) No.151 of 2008, they knew about the order dated 7.9.2000 and immediately, they have filed W.P.(C) No.857 of 2014 challenging the order dated 7.9.2000.
48. The petitioners claim that around the year 1872, the then Maharaja of Manipur viz., Chandrakirti Maharaja gifted the Mahavir Mandir Complex located at Telipati for construction of Mahavir Mandir and other Gods and Goddesses namely Kali Mandir, Hanuman Mandir, Durga Mandir, Radha, Krishna Mandir etc. and the same were located in Dag No.33. Since then the Mahavir Mandir Complex is looked after by the villagers of Telipati and has been used as a place of worship.
49. According to the petitioners, the Commissioner (Revenue), without complying with the mandatory requirement of law, declared the Mahavir Mandir Complex as historical site arbitrarily, illegally and, in contravention of law laid down under Rules 3(1),(2),(3),(4) and (5) of the Rules of 1979 and Section 4(3) of the WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 38 Act of 1976 issued the impugned orders dated 14.11.2007 and 7.9.2000.
50. By the impugned order dated 14.11.2007, the respondent State intend to demarcate the protected historical monument site measuring 90 Sq m of Khurai Ahongpoung under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1979. By the impugned order dated 7.9.2000, the Commissioner declared Khurai Ahongpung as the historical monument as per Section 4(3) of the Act of 1976.
51. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners argued that soon after the issuance of the declaration on 7.9.2000, the respondent State has not taken any steps for demarcation and only after a gap of more than 7 years, the respondent State issued the impugned order dated 14.11.2007 by ignoring the provisions of Rule 5 and Section 4(3) of the Act of 1976. Admittedly, there is a long gap of passing orders between 7.9.2000 and 14.11.2007. As soon as a declaration by notification has been confirmed under Section 4(3) of the Act, the Superintendent of Archaeology shall cause necessary pillars and fencings to be fixed demarcating the area appearing in the notification and required for preservation of the protected monument. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the respondents authorities have failed to do so.
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 39
52. At this juncture, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited (supra), learned senior counsel argued that if initial action is not in consonance with law, subsequent proceedings would not sanctify the same. This Court finds some force in the submission made by learned senior counsel for the petitioners.
53. By the impugned order dated 24.1.2015, the State Archaeology issued notification to all the general public to the effect that Khurai Ahongpoung, a State Protected Historical Site, is open to all the devotees and it can be used for normal prayer from 6 am to 5 pm daily.
54. The specific case of the petitioners is that in the area of Telipati, particularly, the site where the Mahavir temple is located, there is no place such as Khurai Ahongpung nor is it connected with any historical or cultural activities of Meiteis of any other community for that matter. According to the petitioners, the Mahavir temple was constructed by the Shebaits of the Mandir some time around 1872 with the permission of the then Maharaja of Manipur and it is not related with any religious/historical activities of Meitei communities. WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 40
55. Per contra, the State states that Khurai Ahongpung is a mound which has been lying since the time immemorial and during the reign of King of Manipur namely Neidinga Nongda Lairen Pakangaba (33 AD to 154 AD), the then Maichou along with people of Manipur under the supervision of the King started worshiping the said Khurai Ahongpung by offering rice, fruits, vegetables etc. every year on the 1st Saturday of the Meitei month called Lamda which is commonly known as Lamda Thangja.
56. It appears that there is dispute between the Teli community and Meitei community in respect of the origin of Mahavir Mandir and Khurai Ahongpung respectively in Mahavir Mandir Complex, Telipati. The petitioners claim that the Mahavir Mandir Complex has been using the temple complex and has been managing the affairs of the Mahavir Mandir without any interference, but suddenly one fine morning the respondent State without proper application of mind and on the undue pressure and dictation of persons with vested interest, arbitrarily declared the Mahavir Mandir Complex as the protected historical site of Ahongpung.
57. The records reveal that prior to the letter dated 25.2.2006 addressed by the Secretary of Maichou Ningshing Lup namely Irabot Mangang to the Hon'ble Minister (Arts and Culture) WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 41 requesting for development of Khurai Ahongpung site for the purpose of socio-cultural use, there was no record to show that the place in which the Mahavir Mandir Complex located was in peaceful possession of the community of Meitei. In fact, in the said letter dated 25.2.2006 the Secretary stated that there is hardly any space/spot to set afoot for the purpose of performing religious rites or for that matter of annual celebration of Landa Thangja. In the said letter, a prayer was also made for development of the Ahongpung space by the Government to a beautiful historical site for the purpose of celebrating Lamda Thangja every year since the present space is too small for the function to accommodate a large gathering on the occasion.
58. It also appears that on 14.9.2006, the Superintendent of Archaeology informed the Seva Samiti, Telipati that they are planning to expand the area of Khurai Ahongpoung to the northern side from the existing area. The so- called Seva Samiti is concerned with the petitioners. If the petitioners have no interest in the land in question for expansion of Khurai Ahongpung, why the Superintendent of Archaeology called objections from the Seva Samiti. Thus, it is clear that the petitioners have some right in the Mahavir Mandi temple complex, Telipati. It is also the case of the WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 42 respondent State that it has no intention of renaming the Mahavir Mandir.
59. The petitioners contend that they are in physical possession of the site/land in question since 1872 even prior to the MLR & LR Act, 1960 came into force in the year 1960. As stated supra, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioners and Teli community with others have been possessed the site/land in question and recognizing their possession Jamabandi patta was also issued in favour of the petitioners.
60. On analysis of the records and the materials produced by both parties, this Court finds that there is a dispute between the petitioners and the State over a particular land/plot for expansion of Khurai Ahongpung. As stated supra, such dispute cannot be determined in writ jurisdiction on affidavit evidence. Since the petitioners plead that they are in possession of the area/land in question from 1872, on the strength of the impugned orders, they cannot be dispossessed, as status quo order existing in favour of the petitioners and the same has not been vacated till date by either of the opposite parties, including the respondent State. WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 43
61. As stated supra, since there was long gap in issuing the impugned orders, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 7.9.2000 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. That apart, as soon as the order dated 7.9.2000 passed, the Superintendent of Archaeology failed to demarcate the area and put up necessary pillars and fencing. However, the Under Secretary of Arts and Culture intend to demarcate the land only on 14.11.2007. Such a long delay has not been convincingly explained by the respondent authorities. In view of the long delay having not been convincingly explained by the respondent authorities, the same also cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It appears that the respondent authorities failed to afford sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and others before issuing the impugned orders dated 7.9.2000 and 14.11.2007 and there is violation of principles of natural justice. Since the impugned orders dated 7.9.2000 and 14.11.2007 are not sustainable in law, the next order dated 24.1.2015 passed pending writ petitions, which is a consequential order, is also unsustainable in law.
62. At this juncture, placing reliance upon Section 2(a) of the Act of 1976, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that ancient monuments means any structure, erection or monuments or any tumulus or place of internment, or any cave, rock-sculpture, WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 44 inscription or monolith, which is of historical, archaeological or artistic interest and which has been in existence for not less than one hundred years. Thus, the description of Khurai Ahongpung cannot be fitted to the definition as given in Section 2(a) of the Act of 1976. The Indian Archaeological Society is engaged with various projects in the field of conservation of monuments, preservation of museum collections, study of various factors of decay, risk preparedness, scientific approach to the conservation problem pertaining to museum collection, archives, libraries and published various journals. Since the Archaeology Department is an expert and after conducting various level of surveys and enquiry, it has declared Khurai Ahongpung as historical monument in the interest of public. Though this Court found that all three orders impugned in these writ petitions are unsustainable in law, since Khurai Ahongpung has been declared as State Protected Historical Site by the State Government, this Court does not wish to enter into the issue of declaration of Khurai Ahongpung as State Protected Historical Monument by the respondent State.
63. Since in reference to the area in which the Khurai Ahongpung and Mahavir Mandir Temple and other temples are situated, there was land dispute between the petitioners as one part WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 45 and the Meitei community on the other part, the rights with regard to the land and/or the land for expansion on the northern side has to be decided by a civil court, for which the parties are at liberty to approach the civil court for redressal. Till such redressal of the rights of the parties by a civil court, all parties concerned, including the two communities as aforesaid are directed to maintain status quo as exists and this court relegated the power to decide the ownership of the land to the concerned jurisdictional civil court.
64. Since Khurai Ahongpung has been declared as State Protected Monument and devotees are performing poojas and likewise, the petitioners are also maintaining the Mahavir Mandir and other temples in the Mahavir Mandir Complex, Telipati where also poojas are performing by the petitioners, this Court is disposing of the writ petitions by holding that the impugned orders are unsustainable in the eye of law as there was procedural lapse in issuing the same and also the same were issued with long delay. Further, the impugned orders are issued in violation of principles of natural justice.
65. In the result,
(i) The writ petitions are disposed of.
WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015 P a g e | 46
(ii) The parties are directed to maintain status quo as on today till the rights with regard to the disputed land is determined by the civil court.
(iii) It is made clear that the declaration of Khurai Ahongpung as State Protected Historical site has not been interfered with by this court.
(iv) Both the petitioners and the defendants in O.S.No.37 of 2014 pending on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.II, Manipur East are directed to co-operate for early disposal of the said suit.
(v) The Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.II, Manipur East is directed to dispose of O.S.No.37 of 2014 uninfluenced by this order as expeditiously as possible.
(vi) No costs.
66. Registry is directed to issue copy of this order to both the parties through their WhatsApp/e-mail.
JUDGE FR/NFR Sushil WP(C) No. 151 of 2008, WP(C) No. 857 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 124 of 2015