Back
Manipur High Court
J. N. DATTA, J.
C. Naoroibam Bira Singh
Versus
Waikhom Leirenjao Singh
First Appeal No. 2 of 1957
Decided On : 31-07-1957
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1877 - SECTION 42 - POSSESSION - DECLARATION OF TITLE - POSSESSION OF LAND - REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY - SUIT FOR POSSESSION - COURT FEES - POWER OF MAHARAJAH - MODIFICATION OF ORDER - JURISDICTION OF JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER - ARBITRATION - AWARD - BINDING EFFECT - CIVIL COURTS - JURISDICTION - REVIEW PETITION - DISMISSAL - RES JUDICATA - SECOND PETITION - CHIEF COMMISSIONER - JURISDICTION - ARBITRATOR - APPOINTMENT - PRESIDENT'S PERMISSION - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - ARTICLES 217, 218, 221 - SECOND SCHEDULE, PART D, RULES 10(1), 11 - JUDICIAL COMMISSIONERS COURTS (DECLARATION OF HIGH COURTS) ACT, 1950.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs and pro forma defendants, representing 160 houses of a village, applied to the President of the Manipur State Darbar for permission to convert a fishery into arable lands. The principal defendants, representing 260 houses of the village, objected, but the President ordered the conversion and settlement of the lands with the plaintiffs and pro forma defendants. The principal defendants appealed to the Maharajah, who upheld the order for conversion and directed that all residents of the village should get a share of the land on the basis of houses, but they would have to contribute towards the cost of draining the fishery. The Maharajah's order was further clarified by the Agent to the Crown Representative, who stated that those who were not willing to contribute their share of the labour or expense would be deprived of their share of the land in favor of those who undertook the labour and expense. The L.S.O. found that the plaintiffs and pro forma defendants had incurred all the expenses for draining and making the fishery land suitable for cultivation, while the principal defendants had contributed nothing. He ordered that if the principal defendants failed to pay the amount, the lands in their possession shall revert to the plaintiffs and pro forma defendants. The P.M.S.D. set aside the L.S.O.'s order, holding that the principal defendants should be made to pay only the draining costs. The Maharajah allowed the appeal and upheld the L.S.O.'s order, interpreting the words "labour and/or expense" to mean the price of labour and expense which was taken into consideration by the L.S.O. The L.R.O. then asked the principal defendants to pay up, but they informed him that they could not pay the amount. He therefore ordered that the lands shall revert to the plaintiffs and pro forma defendants. The principal defendants approached the Dewan and the Governor of Assam (Agent to the Crown Representative) but failed in their attempts to have those orders set aside. On the advent of integration, they filed a second petition before the Chief Commissioner, who exercised the powers of the Maharajah for the review of the order of the Maharajah, dated 12-5-1948, obviously, suppressing the fact that a previous review application had already been dismissed. The Chief Commissioner, with their consent, referred the matter of the amount to be contributed by the principal defendants to an Arbitrator (the then Judicial Commissioner), who after an enquiry gave his award that the principal defendants should contribute Rs. 3,535/- towards the cost of making the fishery cultivable. The Chief Commissioner, then by his order dated 2-1-1952, in supersession of the previous orders of the P.M.S.D. and the Maharajah upholding the decision of the L.S.O., ordered that the petitioners before him (principal defendants) may be granted their share of the land on payment of Rs. 3,535/- to the respondents (pro forma defendants). The plaintiffs were neither noticed nor made parties to these proceedings before the Chief Commissioner or the Arbitrator.
Finding of the Court:
The plaintiffs were not bound by the award or the order of the Judicial (Chief?) Commissioner dated 2-1-1952 and were entitled to a declaration to that effect. The plaintiffs failed to prove that they were in possession of the 88 1/2 paris of the land allotted to the principal defendants and others of their party on the date they filed the present suit. The defendants were in possession of their share of the land when the present suit was instituted.
Issues: Whether the plaintiffs were bound by the award or the order of the Judicial (Chief?) Commissioner dated 2-1-1952? Whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the 88 1/2 paris of the land allotted to the principal defendants and others of their party on the date they filed the present suit?
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiffs were not bound by the award or the order of the Judicial (Chief?) Commissioner dated 2-1-1952 because they were not parties to those proceedings. The plaintiffs failed to prove that they were in possession of the 88 1/2 paris of the land allotted to the principal defendants and others of their party on the date they filed the present suit. The defendants were in possession of their share of the land when the present suit was instituted.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed.
This is a first appeal and relates to a fishery known as Heingangpat, situated at village Heingang within the jurisdiction of the Police Station at Imphal, in Manipur. The area of the land covered by it is about 120 paris (about 300 acres).
2 In 1938 the plaintiffs representing 120 houses of the village and the pro forma defendants representing 40 houses applied to the President of the Manipur State Darbar for permission to convert the Fishery into arable lands, as there was scarcity of agricultural lands in the village. The defendants representing 260 houses of the village raised certain objections, but the President, Manipur State Darbar ordered the conversion, and the settlement of the lands with the plaintiffs and the pro forma defendants. It is also in the above-mentioned capacity that the present suit was prosecuted and defended by the respective parties under Or. 1 R. 8 C. P. C.
3 The principal defendants then appealed to the Maharajah, and the appeal was heard and decided by the Judicial Member, who was empowered to hear such appeals by the Maharajah, and the copy of the appellate order dated 21-7-1941 (Ext. D/A) shows that the order for conversion was maintained and it was further ordered that all the residents of the village, on the basis of houses, should get a share of the land, but they will have to contribute towards the cost of draining the Pat (fishery) to be fixed by the L. R. O. and they will not be entitled to transfer the land so allotted for a period of 10 years.
4 The Maharajah was then moved for a reconsideration of the said order of the Judicial Member, and that matter came up before Maharajah Budhchandra, who had by then succeeded his father. He referred the matter to the Agent to the Crown Representative and the advice tendered by the latter was that the order dated 21-7-1941 could not be set aside, but that order would not prevent those who were not willing to contribute their share of the labour or expense from being deprived of their share of the land in favour of those who undertook the labour and expense. The Maharajah accepted the same and directed the P. M. S. D. to take necessary action accordingly. His order (copy marked Ext. P-E) is dated 7-6-1945. It will be thus clear that the objection of the principal defendants to the conversion was overruled by all.
5 It appears that the matter went before the L. S. O., who made a local enquiry and found that all the expenses for draining and making the fishery land suitable for cultivation were incurred by the present plaintiffs and pro forma defendants, and the principal defendants had contributed nothing towards those expenses. He also found that nearly the entire area had been brought under cultivation and the parties had been enjoying the lands for three years, that is, since 1942. He found the plaintiffs and pro forma defendants to be in possession of a total area of 31 1/2 paris and the principal defendants in possession of 88 1/2 paris.
He found that the principal defendants were liable to contribute Rs. 77,969/- to the plaintiffs and pro forma defendants towards these costs of making the land cultivable; and ordered that if the principal defendants fail to pay the amount, the lands in their possession shall revert to the plaintiffs and pro forma defendants of the present suit. That order is dated 4-9-1945 and is marked Ext. A-6 in this appeal.
6 An appeal was preferred against this order of the L. S. O. to the P. M. S. D., who set aside the order of the L. S. O. on the ground that the order of the Maharajah (Ext. D/A), which was also approved by the Agent to the Crown Representative was quite clear on the subject and the principal defendants should be made to pay the draining costs only, which were found by the L. S. O. to be Rs. 16/-per pari; and the order of the L. S. O. including costs of clearing the land, acquiring the fishery rights of the pattadars etc. was at variance with the orders of the Maharajah which were explicit. He therefore
AI
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
