JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 as well as Mr. Y. Ashang, learned GA for the State.

2. Before I proceed with the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondents today, the order which was passed on 22.11.2016 needs to be taken notice of, which reads as follows:

"On the basis of submission made on behalf of the petitioners to the effect that the Principal Secretary (TA & Hills), Government of Manipur, does not have any power to pass order for bi-furcating the two villages which had already been amalgamated, an order was recorded on 9.8.2016. Under that order, liberty was reserved with the petitioners to file an application challenging the order under which representation filed by the petitioners had been rejected.

According to learned counsel, the order passed by the Secretary (TA & Hills), Government of Manipur over the representation has been challenged in WP(C) No.668 of 2016 whereby the representation was rejected simply on the ground that the concerned Deputy Commissioner had made recommendation for bifurcation of the two villages namely Lamlai Khullen and Lamlai Khunou, which villages had already been amalgamated and were being known as Ramrei village.

In this regard it was submitted that the Deputy Commissioner does not have any right to make any recommendation for amalgamation or bifurcation of the villages. Besides that it was reiterated that it is the Revenue Department, who is competent to take decision in the mater relating to bifurcation of the village. It would be evident from the office memorandum dated 26.8.2008 published in the Manipur Gazette in its extraordinary issue wherein a clear cut stipulation is there that the order relating to creation and alteration of boundaries of villages shall be issued by the Revenue Department as provided by the Business of Government of Manipur (Allocation) Rules, 1999. By referring to that office memorandum it was submitted that it is quite obvious that the order passed by the Secretary (TA & Hills) Government of Manipur is without jurisdiction and hence, it is fit to be set aside.

As against this learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the matter be posted day after tomorrow so that he would be ready on the point.

As prayed for, let this matter be listed day after tomorrow (24.11.2016). Meanwhile, counsel appearing for private respondents shall also be ready on this point."

3. In addition to submission made on 22.11.2016, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on other ground also the notification dated 30.11.2013 (Annexure-A/13) is bad on account of the reason that the said order was passed without hearing the petitioner being headman of Ramrei Village which came to know by such name when two villages, Lamlai Khullen and Lamlai Khunou were amalgamated and thereby the notification dated 30.11.2013 is fit to be set aside on the aforesaid twin grounds.

4. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that both the applications cannot be maintained on account of non-joinder of necessary parties as the petitioner has impleaded only respondent No.4, who happen to be the headman of village, Lamlai Khunou whereas villagers of that village have never been impleaded as party respondents whose interest would get affected adversely if the order is passed in favour of the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel, in support of his case has referred to a decision rendered in the case of Avtar Singh Hit v. Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee & Ors : (2006) 8 SCC 487 wherein their Lordships in para 31 of the judgment have held as under:

"31. In our view no relief could have been granted to the writ petitioners on account of the fact that the newly elected office-bearers of the Executive Board, who would have been affected by the decision of the writ petitions, were not impleaded as party to the writ petitions. In Udit N

Click Here to Read the rest of this document