The main legal point established is that the Revenue Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by directing mutation and that the ownership of the land had been settled in favor of the petitioners.

1. Heard Mr. T. Rajendra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, Mr. A. Peter, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 and Ms. Ch. Sundari, learned G.A. appearing for the respondent No. 3.

2. The petitioners in this case have approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 18.03.2015 passed by the learned Revenue Tribunal, Manipur in Revenue Revision Case No. 101 of 2014, wherein they were objectors/respondents No. 3 and 4. The brief facts and circumstances which led the petitioners to file the present petition are as follows:

The principal respondent, in this case, submitted an application before the Sub-Deputy Collector (SDC), Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur praying for mutation of her name in the record of rights of the homestead land under Patta No. 165 covered by C.S. Dag No. 319 (which shall hereafter be referred to as the suit land) claiming that she had inherited the same from her late husband namely, Shri Thokchom Saratkumar Singh. The petition was registered as Mutation Case No. 442 of 2014 by SDC, Porompat, Imphal East. After the same was registered, the 2 (two) petitioners in this case including one, Shri Yumkham Bireshchandra Singh objected the petition of the petitioner (principal respondent). The learned SDC, after hearing all the parties, passed the order dated 03.10.2014 in the said mutation case stating that it would be appropriate to keep the mutation case in abeyance till disposal of the Original Suit No. 33/1967/4/2008/27/2010 or till the proceeding of the same attains finality. Not satisfied with the said order, the petitioner in the mutation case (principal respondent in this case) filed a petition before the learned Revenue Tribunal, Manipur under Section 91 read with Section 81 of the MLR & LR Act, 1960 challenging the legality and propriety of the said order of the SDC, Porompat, Imphal East. The revenue revision case was registered as Revenue Revision Case No. 101 of 2014 and the learned Tribunal, after hearing all the parties, disposed the case with an order passed on 18.03.2015 which is impugned in this case.

3. The learned Tribunal allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dated 03.10.2014 of the SDC, Porompat, Imphal East passed in mutation case No. 422/SDC/IE/2014 and also passed the following order:

(i) That, the Original Suit No. 33/1967/4/2008/27/2010, since it was pending for restoration, the same cannot be stated to be pending, therefore, that cannot be a reason for keeping the mutation case pending before the learned SDC, Porompat, Imphal East.

(ii) That, the objectors/respondents No. 3 and 4 in the mutation case (petitioner in this case) did not produce Jamabandi of the suit land which shows the name of Smt. Th. (O) Leirensana Devi and her daughter namely, Smt. Th. (N) Chingangbam Ibetombi Devi from whom they claimed inheritance of the suit land. Therefore, they did not qualify as interested persons as provided under Section 46 of the MLR & LR Act, 1960.

(iii) That, since the name of late Th. Saratkumar Singh, husband of the petitioner in the mutation case was recorded in the Jamabandi of the suit land, on his death the name of his widow Smt. Thangjam (O) RK. Romita Devi (petitioner in the mutation case) should be recorded as pattadar of the suit land. Accordingly, the name of Smt. RK. Romita Devi be mutated in the record of rights of the suit land.

4. The petitioners in this case assailed the impugned order on two grounds:

(i) That, the Original Suit No. 33/1967/4/2008/27/2010 of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Imphal Eastin which dispute over the ownership of the suit land was under adjudication between the parties, was actually pending when the learned SDC, Porompat, Imphal East passe