Back
Manipur High Court
C. JAGANNADHACHARYULU, J.
Aribam Pishak Sharma
Versus
Aribam Tuleswar Sharma
Civil Review Case No. 2 of 1965 (Ref.
Decided On : 07-12-1967
REVIEW PETITION - WRIT PETITION - ROAD SIDE LAND - SETTLEMENT - EVICTION - RULES OF 1959 - ASSAM LAND AND REVENUE REGULATION - BOMBAY HIGHWAYS ACT - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD - MISTAKE - SUFFICIENCY OF REASON - FINAL DECISION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a review petition against the judgment of the High Court allowing a writ petition filed by the first respondent and issuing a writ of mandamus quashing the orders of the second respondent evicting the petitioners from portions of roadside land lying by the side of Imphal-Kangchup-Tamenglong road.
Finding of the Court:
1. The High Court erred in applying Rule 20 of the Rules of 1959, which prohibits the grant of leases for road side land within 35 feet from the foot of the slope of a public road, to the petitioners' cases, as Rule 69 of the Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, which allows the grant of periodic leases for town lands within 25 feet from the central line of any road maintained by the Public Works Department or Local Board, applies. 2. The High Court erred in holding that the Rules of 1959 repealed the Rules contained in Part II of the Assam Land Revenue Manual, as the Rules of 1959 were framed under the same section of the Regulation and were intended to replace the old Rules. 3. The High Court erred in holding that the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act of 1960 repealed the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, as the Act only repealed the enactments mentioned in the schedule, which did not include the Regulation. 4. The High Court erred in relying on the affidavit of the first respondent to find that the sites occupied by the petitioners were settled on them for the first time in 1961, as Exts. A/1 and A/3, which were on record, showed that the sites were granted to the petitioners in 1948 and 1949. 5. The High Court erred in entertaining a single Writ Petition against the petitioners, whose cases were different, and in issuing a writ of mandamus to a non-existing authority.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court erred in applying Rule 20 of the Rules of 1959 to the petitioners' cases. 2. Whether the High Court erred in holding that the Rules of 1959 repealed the Rules contained in Part II of the Assam Land Revenue Manual. 3. Whether the High Court erred in holding that the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act of 1960 repealed the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation. 4. Whether the High Court erred in relying on the affidavit of the first respondent to find that the sites occupied by the petitioners were settled on them for the first time in 1961. 5. Whether the High Court erred in entertaining a single Writ Petition against the petitioners, whose cases were different, and in issuing a writ of mandamus to a non-existing authority.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 69 of the Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, which allows the grant of periodic leases for town lands within 25 feet from the central line of any road maintained by the Public Works Department or Local Board, applies to the petitioners' cases, as the sites occupied by them were granted to them in 1948 and 1949. 2. The Rules of 1959, which were framed under the same section of the Regulation as the Rules contained in Part II of the Assam Land Revenue Manual, were intended to replace the old Rules, and therefore, the old Rules were repealed by implication. 3. The Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act of 1960 only repealed the enactments mentioned in the schedule, which did not include the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, and therefore, the Regulation was not repealed. 4. The High Court erred in relying on the affidavit of the first respondent to find that the sites occupied by the petitioners were settled on them for the first time in 1961, as Exts. A/1 and A/3, which were on record, showed that the sites were granted to the petitioners in 1948 and 1949. 5. The High Court erred in entertaining a single Writ Petition against the petitioners, whose cases were different, and in issuing a writ of mandamus to a non-existing authority.
Final Decision: The review petition is allowed, the judgment of the High Court is reviewed and set aside, and the Writ Petition is dismissed.
This is an application filed by Aribam Pishak Sarma, Irengbam Yaima Singh Aribam Ningol Ngambi Devi and the legal representatives of Pangamham Doya Singh under Ss. 151 and 114 read with order 47, rule 1. C.P.C. against Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma and 7 others to review the judgement of this Court dated 25-5-1965 in Writ Petition No 9 of 1962 allowing it and issuing a writ of mandamus quashing the orders of the second respondent Chief Commissioner, dated 11-8-1961 and 30-9-1961 and directing him and the other respondents 3 to 8 to discharge their statutory duties in evicting the petitioners herein from portions of road side land lying by the side of Imphal-Kangchup-Tamenglong road.
2. The first respondent herein-Aribam Tuleshwar Sarma filed Writ Petition No 16 of 1961 against the petitioners herein for their eviction from portions of road side lying adjoining Imphal-Kangchup-Tamanglong road 32. 4" x 23 6", 19 x 7", 12. 2" x 19 and 8 x 17 occupied by them respectively But, after the petitioners herein filed their written statements and documents, the first respondent withdrew Writ Petition No. 16 of 1961 on 13-7-1962. Subsequently he filed Writ Petition No. 9 of 1962 on 14-9-1962 for the same relief. His case is that he is the owner of northern portion if certain homestead land covered by joint patta No. 87/27/1. W.T. (Vide Ext. B/12) abutting the Imphal-Kangchup-Tamenglong road. The Government of Manipur declared the said road in its Notification No. PW/CMN/4/53 dated 26-5-1954 as a district road. (Vide Ext. B/13). It maintained the width of the road at 40 ft. and 60 ft. respectively on us approach to urban and industrial areas. It also declared the building and control lines in respect of class of district roads and directed that, as measured from the central line, they should be 50 and 80" respectively. Thus the area upto 80 from the central line on both sides was reserved for the road, The homestead land of the first respondent is within the Municipal area of Imphal. It lies within the urban and industrial area of Manipur. So, the width of the road in question has been maintained at 60 being 30 on either side from the central lint of the road.
3. The first respondent also alleged that the Manipur Government declared the road as part of the State Highway as published in its Manipur Gazette Extraordinary 71-E-53 dated 28-8-1959. (Ext B/14). By a subsequent Gazette notification dated 4-4-1962 (Vide Ext. B/15) the Government declared the said road as a Highway under the Bombay Highways Act of 1955, which was extended to Manipur Union territory from 11-1-1960. In October, 1960 when the first respondent was constructing a shop on his homestead land, the petitioners encroached on the reserved road side land by constructing shops. The first respondent filed an application before the Settlement Officer, Manipur on 27-10-1960, requesting him to remove the encroachment made by the petitioners. But, he did not take any action even though he sent a reminder on 13-2-1961 Subsequently, the area was surveyed in 1960-61 Cases of encroachment of public road side land were taker up. The Settlement Officer passed an order on 5-1-1961 directing the eviction of the petitioners under Rule 18(2) of the Rules framed by the second respondent on 9-5-1959 (hereinafter called as the Rules of 1959) under Section 157 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation-Regulation 1 of 1886 (hereinafter called as the Regulation) as extended to the territory of Manipur. Vide Exts. B/1 to B/8. But the petitioners did not remove, the buildings from the encroached portions. So, the then Assistant Settlement Officer (E). Manipur, started eviction proceedings against the petitioners on 24-4-1961. The petitioners filed appeal before the second respondent. Chief Commissioner of Manipur against the orders of eviction in C.C. Rev Appeal Nos. 28, 30, 31 and 32 of 1961. He dismissed the appeal of late Pangambam Doya Singh for default on 1-8-1961 (Vide Ext. B/21). On 4-8-1961, he
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
