Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
N.Kotiswar Singh, J.
All Manipur Small Scale Industrialists Association - Appellant
Versus
State of Manipur and Ors. - Resopndent
Writ Petition (C) No. 302 OF 2014
Decided On : 16-05-2014
Land Dispute - Work Order - [Section 80 of C.P.C., 1908, Order I, Rule 9 of C.P.C., 1908, Article 226 of the Constitution of India] - The court examined the validity of the work order issued for construction of a road on a private land and found disputed questions of fact and title of the land. The court held that it was not the appropriate forum to resolve these issues and directed the petitioner to raise the issues before the Civil Court or other competent courts for redressal of grievances.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner Association claimed ownership of a land and challenged a work order issued for construction of a road on their land without consent. The respondents argued that the work had already been completed and raised issues regarding the title of the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found disputed questions of fact and title of the land, and held that it was not the appropriate forum to resolve these issues.
Issues: Disputed questions of fact, validity of work order, and title of the land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it was not the appropriate forum to resolve disputed questions of fact and directed the petitioner to raise the issues before the Civil Court or other competent courts for redressal of grievances.
Final Decision: The writ petition stands closed.
N. Kotiswar Singh, J.
Heard Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned senior G.A. for the State respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Association, a registered association and represented by its President, namely, Mr. A. Brajakumar Sharma. According to the petitioner, the petitioner Association owns a land under Dag No. 2601 situated at Jiribam having Patta No. 279 (old)/481 (new) measuring an area of 6.0705 hectares in revenue village No. 3 - Dibong (Jiribam) of Imphal East District, Manipur. It has been claimed that the petitioner Association had been possessing the said suit land continuously without any interruption or disturbance for more than 24 years. However, sometime in the early part of October, 2012, some un-authorised persons tried to construct an inter village road (IVR) inside the said land without the permission of the petitioner association. Thereafter, the President of the Association submitted an application to the ADC Jiribam, Imphal East District, Manipur and AS & SO, Jiribam, Imphal East District, Manipur on 20.11.2012 requesting not to allow any unauthorised construction as the land belongs to the petitioner Association. However, apprehending disturbances from unauthorised persons including the private respondents, the petitioner approached the Civil Court by instituting the Original Suit No. 77 of 2013 before the Civil Judge Sr. Division, Manipur East No. II for declaration respondents. It has been stated that in the said suit, the private respondents had filed a written statement admitting that they had constructed the road in the land which belongs to the petitioner.
3. It has been submitted by the petitioner that in the course of the said trial, the petitioner came to know that the work order dated 27.5.2013 had been issued in favour of the private respondent No. 6 by the State respondent for construction of road from Harinagar to J/T Road.
4. The petitioner's plea in the writ petition is that since the land belongs to the petitioner Association, the respondent authorities have no right to issue any work order inviting for construction of any road inside a private land. Accordingly, the petitioner has challenged the work order dated 27.5.2013 issued in favour of the respondent No. 6 in the present writ petition.
5. At the time of motion, Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned senior GA submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable in asmuch as it has been stated very clearly that in the written objection filed by the defendants (respondent Nos. 5 & 6) in the Original Suit No. 77/2013 instituted by the present petitioner that the work had already been completed on 30.8.2013. In this connection, learned senior GA has drawn attention of this Court to the relevant paragraph of the written statement filed by the defendants, a copy of which is annexed to the present petition as Annexure-A/5. In this connection, one may refer to the relevant paragraph of the written statement filed by the defendants (present respondent No. 5 and 6) in the Original Suit No. 77 of 2013 which is reproduced herein below:
5. It is humbly submitted that there is no any office of the Plaintiff's Association i.e., Small Scale Industrial Association inside the suit land. It is further submitted that the Defendant No. 2 is/was the Government Contractor of Public Works Department, Manipur and also the Defendant No. 1 is the simple locality/villager of Uchathol, Jiribam, under the Imphal East District, Manipur and as such the Government of Manipur had been issued a notice for tendering of "Work Orders" being No. JD/CT(8)/2013/204 dated 27.05.2013 for construction of Road from Harinagar to J/T road, vide letter No. SE-I/SW/JBM/2012-13/2 dated 25.05.2013 for a public purpose and as such as per works orders of the Public Works Department, Manipur, on behalf of the Governor of Manipur, the Defendant No. 2 has started the aforesaid "Works" inside the
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
