Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Andy Mangsatabam and Rarry Mangsatabam, being two of the brothers of Annie Mangsatabam, approached the Revenue Tribunal, Manipur at Lamphelpat, aggrieved by the aforestated Mutation Order dated 27.12.2005. As there was a long delay of 5715 days on their part in doing so, they filed Revenue Miscellaneous (Revenue Petition) Case No.52 of 2021 seeking condonation of the said delay in filing a revision against the Mutation Order dated 27.12.2005. By judgment and order dated 18.04.2022, the Tribunal refused to condone the delay and rejected their application. Aggrieved thereby, Andy Mangsatabam filed CRP No.18 of 2022 while Rarry Mangsatabam filed CRP No.21 of 2022. Both the CRPs were filed under Article 227 of the Constitution.

[2] Heard Mr. Th. Modhu, learned counsel for Andy Mangsatabam; Mr. Rarry Mangsatabam, appearing as a party-in-person; and Ms. I.Lenibala Devi, learned counsel, appearing for Annie Mangsatabam. 

CRP(CRP Art.227) Nos.18 & 21 of 2022                                           Page 2
 [3]          Before the Tribunal, the two brothers had claimed ignorance of the

Mutation Order dated 27.12.2005. They pointed out that they were not made parties to the Mutation Case filed by their sister and had never received any summons from the revenue authority. They pointed out that Rarry Mangsatabam was residing at Delhi at the relevant point of time and that Andy Mangsatabam had filed objection petition dated 26.08.2005 before the Assistant Survey & Settlement Officer, Imphal West-I, with regard to any mutation being carried out for the subject homestead land, but despite the same, he was not put on notice by the revenue authority. They also pointed out that a notice was published by the revenue authority in a vernacular newspaper 'Thoudang', which was not widely circulated and was not read by them. They claimed that they came to know of the mutation order only when Andy Mangsatabam applied for and received a copy of the Jamabandi on 18.10.2021. They quantified the delay in filing a revision against the said mutation order as 5715 days and sought condonation on the ground that the delay was bonafide and without any negligence on their part, as they were unaware of the mutation order. [4] Annie Mangsatabam filed written objections before the Tribunal claiming that her brothers had not demonstrated sufficient cause to condone the long delay on their part. She asserted that they had slept over the matter for 16 years and had no explanation therefor. She stated that her brothers had knowledge of the entry of her name in the records and claimed that there was a family arrangement, wherein they had taken their share of the properties of their deceased mother and, with their knowledge and consent, she sought mutation of her name for the subject homestead land. According to her, the question of giving notice to her brothers did not arise. 

CRP(CRP Art.227) Nos.18 & 21 of 2022                                             Page 3
 [5]          The Tribunal noted that the brothers claimed knowledge of the mutation

order only when they obtained a Jamabandi copy on 18.10.2021 and opined that, as all the siblings lived together in the same house, they could not claim ignorance of the mutation carried out in favour of their sister. Further, it opined that they ought to have explained as to what they were doing before 18.10.2021. The Tribunal accepted the version of Annie Mangsatabam that there was a family arrangement and that, with the knowledge and consent of her two brothers, Annie Mangsatabam had applied for entry of her name in the records in relation to the subject homestead land and, therefore, the question of giving notice to the brothers did not arise at all. Strangely, the Tribunal opined that sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay must relate to events or circumstances existing before the period of limitation expired and events or circumstances arising after expiry of the limitation period would not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. Concluding that the two brothers were negligent and did not take steps in time, the Tribunal refused to condone the delay and rejected their application.

[15] On the above analysis, this Court finds that adequate grounds were made out by the two brothers to constitute sufficient cause for condonation of the delay on their part in filing a revision against the Mutation Order dated 27.12.2005. The Tribunal grievously erred in non-suiting them at the threshold by refusing to condone the said delay on the ground that they failed to substantiate sufficient cause.

The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly allowed, condoning the delay of 5715 days in the presentation of the Revenue Revision case by the two brothers against the Order dated 27.12.2005 in Mutation Case No. 449/AS & SO-IW-I of 2005 on the file of the Assistant Survey and Settlement Officer, Imphal West-I, Manipur. The Tribunal shall number the said revision, if it is otherwise found to be in order, and adjudicate the same on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously, after hearing all the parties concerned.