Back
Manipur High Court
C. JAGANNADHACHARYULU, J.
Tronglaobi Pisciculture Co-operative Society Ltd.
Versus
Chief Commissioner (Administrator) of Manipur
Civil Writ Appln. Case No. 5 of 1965
Decided On : 13-01-1969
MANIPUR LAND REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS ACT - SETTLEMENT OF LAND - BOUNDARIES PREVAIL OVER EXTENT - DE-RESERVATION OF LAND - PREFERENCE TO LANDLESS AGRICULTURAL WORKERS - JURISDICTION OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER - VOID JUDGMENT - ESTOPPEL - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY - WRIT PETITION MAINTAINABLE - LEGAL RIGHT INFRINGED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Pisciculture Co-operative Society, obtained a rule nisi under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the Chief Commissioner of Manipur, the Union Territory of Manipur, and a third respondent, challenging an order settling 1.77 acres of land in favor of the third respondent. The land was initially settled with the petitioner for piscicultural purposes, but the third respondent claimed encroachment on a portion of the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the boundaries of the land, as described in the settlement order, prevailed over the extent mentioned in the order. The de-reservation of the land was made only for piscicultural purposes, and the first respondent did not specify the purpose for which the excess land was settled with the third respondent. The court also found that the third respondent was not eligible for allotment of the land as a landless agricultural worker, and that the first respondent did not have the jurisdiction to allot the land, which was the power of the Deputy Commissioner. The court further held that the order of the Settlement Officer, which was in the absence of the third respondent, was void and could be ignored.
Issues: 1. Whether the boundaries of the land prevailed over the extent mentioned in the settlement order. 2. Whether the de-reservation of the land was made only for piscicultural purposes. 3. Whether the third respondent was eligible for allotment of the land as a landless agricultural worker. 4. Whether the first respondent had the jurisdiction to allot the land. 5. Whether the order of the Settlement Officer was void.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the principle that falsa demonstratio non nocet, which means that a false description does not harm. The court held that the boundaries of the land, as described in the settlement order, prevailed over the extent mentioned in the order, as the boundaries were more specific and provided a fixed demarcation of the land. 2. The court interpreted the order of de-reservation of the land to mean that it was made only for piscicultural purposes, as the order specifically mentioned that the land was to be used for piscicultural purposes. 3. The court referred to the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Allotment of Land Rules, 1962, which gave preference to landless agricultural workers in the allotment of land for agricultural purposes. The court held that the third respondent, who was not a landless agricultural worker, was not eligible for allotment of the land. 4. The court held that the first respondent did not have the jurisdiction to allot the land, as it was the power of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 14 (1) of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960. 5. The court held that the order of the Settlement Officer, which was passed in the absence of the third respondent, was void, as the Settlement Officer was bound to follow the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in deciding the cases.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the first respondent settling 1.77 acres of land in favor of the third respondent, and ordered that all the excess land be settled with the petitioner Society.
The petitioner Tronglaobi Pisciculture Co-operative Society Ltd., by its Chairman, Maimom Iboton Singh of Kiyam Siphai village under Thoubal Police Station obtained rule nisi under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against (1) the Chief Commissioner of Manipur, (2) the Union Territory of Manipur and (3) Khundrakpam Khamba Singh of Kiyam Siphai village calling upon the respondents to show cause why a writ of certiorari should not be issued quashing the order of the first respondent dated 8-12-1964 passed by him in C. C. Revenue Appeal Case No. 5 of 1964, under which 1.77 acres of land covered by new Dag No. 4004 situate in Kiyam Siphai village was ordered to be settled in favour of the 3rd respondent under the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act (Act XXXIII of 1960), hereinafter called as the Act of 1960.
2. The respondents showed cause.
3. The brief facts of the case leading to the institution of the present writ petition are thus. An extent of 16.62 acres of land covered by patta No. 96/l(A) Thoubal Tahsil situate in Kiyam Siphai village formed part of Waithou Soirel Fishery No. 226, having been declared as such under Section 16 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation (Regulation 1 of 1886) which was made applicable to Manipur. It was temporarily settled by the Government in 1953-54 with the Waithou Phumnon Fishing Co-operative Society Ltd. The said Society enjoyed the land as lessee of the Government till 1961-62, during which period the third respondent was employed as Chowkidar of a brick-field and was allowed to occupy a portion of the land. The Society was dissolved in 1962-63.
4. Some of the members of the aforesaid Society, who are landless agricultural workers, proposed to form a Pisciculture Co-operative Society and to have the above-mentioned land settled with the latter for piscicultural purposes. The Deputy Commissioner of Manipur submitted to the Government of Manipur proposal to de-reserve the said land from Waithou Soirel Fishery No. 226 to settle it with the petitioners Society. The first respondent accorded sanction to the dereservation of land measuring 5 paris out of the said Waithou Soirel Fishery No. 226 in favour of the petitioners Society and described the boundaries of the land. They are Waithou Fishery and foot-path on the northern side and on the three remaining sides there are "Burma Road and hill". Vide Ext. A/1 dated 1-5-1962 certified copy of the order of the first respondent.
5. The petitioners Society was registered on 16-8-1962 as Tronglaobi Pisciculture Cooperative Society Limited with 42 landless agricultural workers as members, who reside within a distance 2 kilometres from the said land. The Deputy Commissioner passed an order (under Section 14 (1) of the Act of 1960 and Rules 8 (ii) and 12 (a) of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1962) settling the land with the petitioners Society. He directed that the petitioners Society should lay an earthen boundary bund, so that 5 paris might be separated from the Waithou Soirel Fishery No. 226. He described the land settled with the petitioner by the same boundaries as mentioned in Ext. A/1. Vide Ext. A/2 certified copy of his order dated 8-12-1962.
6. In the course of the survey and settlement operations in 1962-63, it was discovered that the actual extent of the land is 6- pans and not 5 paris. The entire extent was put in the name of the petitioner in the Dag Chitha prepared in 1962. Vide Ext. A/7 certified copy of the Dag Chitha. There were criminal proceedings between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent regarding the excess land. When the third respondent interfered with the disputed excess portion of the land, the S. D. M. Thoubal directed him to execute a bond under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code for keeping the peace in N. F. I. R. case No. 21 of 1963. Vide Ext. A/10 certified copy of the police report and the order of the S. D. M. dated 21-2-1964. Again, when the third respo
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
