SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Manipur) 49

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Ramalingam Sudhakar, J.
Moshhilpa Maring and Others – Appellants
Versus
Angom Amu Singh and Others – Respondents
CRP (CRP Art. 227) No. 9 of 2018
Decided On : 13-09-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S. Sachindra.
For the Respondent: N. Umakanta.

The demarcation report by the Deputy Commissioner, Chandel, was found to be in compliance with the decree and based on records and principles of natural justice.

Headnote:

Demarcation - Civil Revision Petition - O.S. No. 8/2003/18/2013 - Ext. 6, Order dated 17.01.1924 - Mimang Lok, U Tangji trees - Execution Case No. 2 of 2010 - W.P. (C) No. 427 of 2010 - Demarcation Case No. 1 of 2011 - Deputy Commissioner, Chandel - Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench - MARSAC - Leibi Village - Kwatha Village

Fact of the Case:

The suit was filed to demarcate the injunction suit against the present revision petitioners/defendants. The suit was decreed on 28.12.2009 based on Ext. 6, order dated 17.01.1924. An Execution Case No. 2 of 2010 was filed to execute the decree. The Deputy Commissioner, Chandel passed Demarcation Case No. 1 of 2011, which was challenged in W.P. (C) No. 427 of 2010 before the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench.

Finding of the Court:

The Execution Court rejected all objections raised by the revision petitioners and accepted the Deputy Commissioner's demarcation report. The Court found no serious error in the demarcation report, stating that it was within the scope of the decree and backed by a direction of the High Court. The Court dismissed the revision petition for lack of lawful reason to interfere with the order.

Issues: The main issue was the correctness of the demarcation report by the Deputy Commissioner, Chandel, and its compliance with the decree.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the demarcation report was based on records and materials required by law, followed principles of natural justice, and was in line with the decree. The Execution Court cannot go beyond the decree, and the revision petition lacked merit.

Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed for lack of lawful reason to interfere with the order.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. S. Sachindra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. N. Umakanta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This civil revision petition has been filed challenging the order of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Imphal East in Execution Case No. 2 of 2010/3/2011/1/2013/22/2014/1/2016 Ref: O.S. No. 8/2003/18/2013.

3. The respondents/petitioners/plaintiffs/decree holders filed the suit to demarcate the injunction suit against the present revision petitioners/defendants. The suit was decreed on 28.12.2009 in the following manner:-

"1. For the aforesaid observations, reasons and findings, it is ordered and decreed that the boundaries of Kwatha Village are and shall be those that are given in Ext. 6 i.e. order dated 17.1.1924 passed by the Hon'ble Court of the President of Manipur State Darbar in Hill Misc. Case No. 116 of 1923-24. Parties are directed to maintain these boundaries for all time to come. The boundaries as per Exbt. 6 will be demarcated and identified. Defendants' counter claim is accordingly disposed of. Composite decree be prepared accordingly. But no costs.

Sd/-

(M. Ibohal Singh)

Addl. District Judge (Fast Tract Court), Manipur West."

4. The decree was prepared on the basis of the judgment dated 28.12.2009 on same day and it reads as follows:-

"2. That in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 28.12.2009, a decree dated 28.12.2009 was prepared by the Addl. District Judge (Fast Tract Court), Manipur West as follows:

"For the aforesaid observations, reasons and findings, it is observed and decreed that the boundaries of Kwatha Village are and shall be those that are given in Ext. i.e. order dated 17.01.1924 passed by the Hon'ble Court of the President of Manipur State Darbar in Hill Misc. Case No. 116 of 1923-1924. Parties are directed to maintain these boundaries for all time to come. The boundaries as per Exbt.-6 will be demarcated and identified. Defendants' counter claim is accordingly disposed of. Composite decree be prepared accordingly.

It is further ordered and decreed that parties will bear their own costs.

Given under my hand and seal of the Court, this day the 28th December, 2009.

Sd/-

(M. Ibohal Singh)

Addl. District Judge (Fast Tract Court), Manipur West."

5. In effect, the judgment and decree primarily relied upon Ext. 6 in the order dated 17.01.1924 passed by the Court of President of Manipur State Darbar in Hill Misc. Case No. 116 of 1923-24, and the same is set out for better clarity:

"3. For more clarity, the operative portion of Ext. 6 i.e. order dated 17.01.1924 passed by the Court of the President of Manipur State Darbar in Hill Misc. Case No. 116 of 1923-24 is hereinafter reproduced:

"In future the boundary between Leibi+Goatha will be Mimang Lok (main Lairem Loksha).

The field at the head of this Lok will go to Leibi. The boundary is at the place where there are four "U Tangji" trees growing together.

6. Based on the judgment and decree, an Execution Case being No. No. 2 of 2010 came to be filed to execute the decree dated 28.12.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Tract Court), Manipur West in O.S. No. 8 of 2009. In the execution case, 2(two) orders were passed on 23.03.2010 and 28.06.2010. By this order, the Deputy Commissioner, Chandel, who is the head of the administration of the district wherein the two villages and the parties who are fighting for the demarcation of the boundary are situated, was directed to take up the task of demarcation. In the order, it was pointed out that the plaintiffs belong to "Meitei" community and the defendants belong to "Maring" community and in order to avoid communal feud at the time of demarcation, sufficient staff, members should be taken and the police authorities should be involved to avoid law and order situation. However, this order of the Execution court did not result in any fruitful action, forcing the decree holders to file W.P. (C) No. 427 of 2010 before the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, seeking to execu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top