IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of proving ownership of land and upheld the authority of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to issue eviction orders under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 15 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960.

JUDGMENT

1. This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 401 read with Section 397 and 398 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 28.9.2020 in Eviction Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.1 of 2020 passed by the fourth respondent under Section 133 Cr.P.C. read with Section 15 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960.

2. Heard Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. H. Samarjit, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State and learned counsel for the sixth respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of piece of homestead land under Patta No.23/296, Imphal East Tahasil, Porompat Sub- Division, covered by C.S. Dag No.31/597 measuring an extent of 0.90 acre Ingkhol Class situated at 23-Khongkham Leikai Revenue Village and the said land has been occupying by the petitioner without any disturbances from all quarters. Kongpal Makha Kongkham Leikai Development Committee formed by the localities of Kongpal Makha Kongkham Leikai was the owner of the land in question and the revenue records stood in the name of Kongpal Makha Kongkham Leikai. Later on, the name was changed into the present petitioner's name in consonance with the name of Awang Kongpal Kongkham Leikai Development Committee.

4. Further case of the petitioner is that the land in question is recorded in the name of the petitioner in the relevant land records during survey and the petitioner has been paying land revenue regularly since 1964 to till date. Prior to the recording in the Jamabandhi Patta as Awang Kongpal Kongkham Leikai Development Committee, the land measuring an extent of 0.43 acres under Imphal East Tahasil situated at 23-Khongkham Leikai Revenue Village was recorded as Kongpal Makha Kongkham Leikai in the chitta. However, the petitioner has been in possession of an area of 0.90 acre of the said land and accordingly, the revenue officials have corrected the area of the land in question from 0.43 acre to 0.90 acre during survey.

5. According to the petitioner, the members of the petitioner have been possessing and enjoying the said land by constructing 5 semi-pucca shop buildings and rented out to different individuals for their business purpose for the last many years. While so, on 28.9.2020 at about 7.30 P.M., without giving any prior notice, a team of police personal of Porompat Police Station came at the land in question and asked for removal of the structure constructed at the said land and when the petitioner asked for producing any documents regarding the removal of the structure from the said land, they failed to produce any documents and left immediately. On 29.9.2020 at about 9.30 A.M., the officials of the fourth respondent along with police personnel without giving prior notice to the petitioner and the tenants caused the impugned conditional order dated 28.9.2020 in Eviction Cril. Misc. Case No.1 of 2020 under Section 133 Cr.P.C. read with Section 15 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 and started demolition of five shops and also other two vacant room buildings thereby dispossessed the petitioner from the said land. Thereafter, the said land was enclosed and bounded with C1 sheet brought by them and dispossessed illegally. Assailing the said action of the fourth respondent and its officials, the present criminal revision petition has been filed.

6. Opposing the petition, the respondents 1,3 and 4 filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that as per the letter dated 28.9.2020 submitted by the Director, Settlement and Land Records, Manipur, the land covered by C.S. Dag No.31 measuring an extent of 59.17 acre situated at revenue village No.23/Kongkham Leikai is a Sarkari Khas and that one club namely Kongpal Student Club has been recorded in remark column No.18 of Dag chitta as an encroacher for an area of 3.32 acre. Further, in the said letter, there is no allotment order issued by the Government in favour of Awang K