IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Bhagwati Prashad & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
WP (C) No. 151 of 2008, WP (C) No. 857 of 2014, WP (C) No. 124 of 2015
Decided On : 18-01-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quashing of historical site orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. historical significance and community claims. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. respondent claims of state rights over land. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. counterarguments regarding land encroachment. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. historical site protection procedures. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. orders issued by government for historical sites. (Para 19 , 32) |
| 7. legal rights concerning contested land. (Para 22 , 31 , 38) |
| 8. pending civil suits affecting jurisdiction. (Para 33 , 34 , 36 , 46) |
| 9. importance of registered documents in land ownership. (Para 37 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 10. court's procedural findings and implications. (Para 42 , 43 , 64) |
JUDGMENT
1. W.P. (C) No.151 of 2008 has been filed by the petitioners to quash the order dated 14.11.2007 and to direct the respondents to refrain from taking any action in connection with the setting up of a historical monument site at Telipati area of Khurai, Imphal East District.
2. W.P.(C) No.857 of 2014 has been filed by the petitioners to quash the notification bearing No.5/24/99-S(AC) of the Commissioner (Arts and Culture), dated 7.9.2000 published in the Manipur Gazette on 11.2.2013 corresponding to the notification dated 15.1.2000 published on 28.1.2000 as arbitrary and to direct the respondents to refrain from taking any action, in connection with the setting up of a historical monument site at Telipatti area of Khurai, Imphal East District in view of the notification dated 7.9.2000 to protect the principle of rule of law.
3. W.P.(C) No.124 of 2015 has been filed by petitioners seeking to quash the impugned order dated 24.1.2015 as the same was issued with material irregularities, arbitrary and non-application of mind and to direct the respondents to refrain from taking any action/arrangement/process in pursuance of the said order.
4. Since the issue involved is one and the same, all three writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common order.
5. The case of the petitioners is that Teli community are inhabitants of Telipati area, Khurai, Imphal East District, Manipur since time immemorial and most probably around 1872, the Maharaja of Manipur donated the Mahavir Mandir Complex located at Telipatti for construction of Mahavir Mandir. In the trace map No.102, the actual size where the Mahavir Mandir is located is shown in Dag No.33. Since 1872, the Mahavir Mandir Complex is maintained and looking after by the villagers of Telipatti and using as a place of worship and as such the plot of land measuring about 19 acres under Dag No.33 was registered in the name of the President of Mahavir Mandir Telipatti Shebait Bhagwati Prasad. Jamabandi/Patta was also issued in the name of Mahavir Mandir Telipatti Shebait Bhagwati Prasad.
6. Mahavir Mandir complex is used by the Shebaits and the villagers of Telipatti as a place of worship and for the purpose connected without any disturbance/interference from any quarter. While so, the respondents, on the pressure of some vested groups of people, declared the Telipati area as protected historical site of Khurai Ahongpung. Further, the respondents without following the procedures laid down in Sections 2(b)(v), 4(1) to (3), Section 13 and 20 of the MANIPUR ANCIENT AND HISTORICAL MONUMENTS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND REMAINS ACT , 1976 and Rules 3(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of the MANIPUR ANCIENT AND HISTORICAL MONUMENTS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND REMAINS RULES , 1979 declared the Telipati area as the protected historical monument site of Khurai Ahongpung. According to the petitioners, the respondents without complying with the procedures laid down in Sections 4(1), 5(1), 6(1), 7, 8 and 9 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT issued the impugned order dated 14.11.2007. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed W.P.(C) No.151 of 2008 before the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench and the Gauhati High Court passed status quo order regarding the nature and possession of the land described i.e. the alle
SMS Tea Estates Private Limited vs. Chandmari Tea Company Private Limited
Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited though Director vs. State of Haryana and another
Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Suga Mill (P) Ltd. and others
Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and others vs. Ananta Saha and others
Guru Amarji Singh vs. Rattan Chand, (1993) 4 SCC 349
J&K Public Service Commission and others vs. Dr.Narinder Mohan and others
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. Internatinal Airport Authority of India and others
Sankalchan Jaychandbhai Patel and others vs. Vithalbhai Jayachandbhai Patel and others
The court established that land used for religious purposes does not fall under Shamlat Deh, affirming the rights of the religious institution over the land.
The court affirmed that a temple, having established its title through civil court decrees, is entitled to police protection to enforce its rights against unlawful eviction attempts by others.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.