Back
Manipur High Court
T. N. R. TIRUMALPAD, J.
Deity Lainingthou Pureiromba of Lamlai
Versus
Chief Commissioner of Manipur
Civil Writ Appln. No. 16 of 1958
Decided On : 08-08-1959
LAND ACQUISITION - DEITY'S LAND - RESUMPTION - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - ARTICLES 25, 26, 19(F) (5) AND 31 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - WRIT OF CERTIORARI - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT - PUBLIC PURPOSE - COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a deity through its Shebait, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to quash an order of acquisition of a portion of its land. The land was revenue-free and held sacred by the people of Angom clan, who worshipped the deity. The land was used for religious ceremonies and it was believed that any violation of the land would result in evil consequences. In 1957, the Chairman of the Social Welfare Committee applied for a portion of the land, and the Manipur Administration purported to grant settlement of the land in January 1958, treating it as Khas Government land. The petitioner's application for reconsideration and subsequent application to the Chief Commissioner did not yield any result.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the land in question was in the possession of the deity at the time of allotment to the Chairman of the Board and on the day of dispossession. The Dag Chitha prepared in 1923-24 showed that the land was Lai-rou or land of the deity, and that the possession of the land by the deity had been old possession even then. The court also found that the land was revenue-free and that the deity had been in possession of the land for a long time. The court held that the action of the respondents in allotting the land to the Social Welfare Board without following the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was in contravention of the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 31 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the land in question was in the possession of the deity at the time of allotment to the Chairman of the Board and on the day of dispossession? 2. Whether the Dag Chitha prepared in 1923-24 showed that the land was Lai-rou or land of the deity, and that the possession of the land by the deity had been old possession even then? 3. Whether the land was revenue-free and that the deity had been in possession of the land for a long time? 4. Whether the action of the respondents in allotting the land to the Social Welfare Board without following the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was in contravention of the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 31 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Dag Chitha prepared in 1923-24 showed that the land was Lai-rou or land of the deity, and that the possession of the land by the deity had been old possession even then. The court also found that the land was revenue-free and that the deity had been in possession of the land for a long time. 2. The court held that the action of the respondents in allotting the land to the Social Welfare Board without following the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was in contravention of the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 31 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed and a writ was issued quashing the order allotting the land to the Chairman of the Social Welfare Board and giving possession to the said Chairman. The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the petitioner.
The petitioner, the Pureiromba Deity of Lamlai village through its Shebait Angom Atomchouba Singh has filed this application for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of acquisition of a portion of the land belonging to the said deity in Lamlai village.
2. The petitioners case is as follows :
The land under Dag No. 10/11 (old) which is the same as Dag No. 38 (new) measuring about 3 bighas in Lamlai village, Khabam Pana, Imphal East Tahsil in which the temple of the Deity Lainingthou Pureiromba is situated, is a revenue-free land and it is entered under the name of Lai Ibungo Pureiromba Bannya Devata in the record-of-rights of the said land maintained in the Revenue Department of the Manipur Administration based on the Chitha and the field map. The said land is held sacred by the people of Angom clan, who worshipped the said deity and who considered the deity as the progenitor of the clan. Every year Chaklon Katpa ceremony of the said deity is performed by the people of Angom Sagei and the Maharajah of Manipur and the villagers assembled with their offerings in the said land and Laiharaoba of the said deity was also performed annually in the said land.
The land has been in the exclusive possession of the deity for the performance of the said ceremonies from time immemorial as of right and enjoyed peacefully and without any interruption and the right and title of the deity to the said land has thus been perfected. Any encroachment or violation of the said land was considered a sacrilege and would hurt the religious susceptibilities of the people of Angom clan and the villagers of Lamlai and the cluster of bamboos in the said land should not be cut and no earth from any portion of the said land can be taken out. It is the belief, which is firmly rooted that if anything is done in violation of the said custom evil consequences will follow, to the Maharajah and the people of Manipur.
3. In the middle of 1957, the Chairman of the Social Welfare Committee, Manipur is said to have made an application for 1 bigha measuring 235 ft. x 45 ft. out of the said land and the S. D. C. of Imphal East Tahsil is said to have made a report in support of it and the Manipur Administration purported to grant settlement of the said land in January 1958, treating the land as if it was Khas Government land.
4. Such settlement amounts to an acquisition of such a piece of land belonging to the deity. But no proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were taken by the respondent. Such illegal acquisition of property is an invasion of the fundamental right of the petitioner under Articles 25, 26 and 19(f) (5) of the Constitution.
5. The petitioners application to the Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration of the matter in March, 1958 and his subsequent application to the Chief Commissioner did not bring forth any result. Even the application of the petitioner for copies of the orders passed by the Administration was rejected.
6. Hence the action of respondents was in breach of the law and without jurisdiction and in contravention of their duties and obligations as public officers and must be declared a nullity as far as the petitioner is concerned.
7. In support of the petitioners case, he has produced the Dag Chitha prepared in 1923-24 in accordance with Rules 56 and 62 of the Settlement Rules under the Assam Land Revenue Manual Vol. 1 as Document 2. Document 2 shows that the name of the pattadar was given as Lai Ibungo Pureiromba Banyadevta and in column 11, the land was described as Lairou, which was admitted by the parties to mean the land of the deity. The petitioner also produced document No. 1 given by the Pandit Achouba, meaning the senior Pandit of the Maharajah of Manipur in which he has stated that this deity Lainingthou Pureiromba had been set up in the village of Lamlai more than 2000 years ago at the time of the colonization of Chakpa when the evacuees returned after the invasion of Manipur by the Chinese led by the brother o
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
