Item Nos. 8-9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL WP(C) No. 976 of 2025 Moirangthem Nimai Singh.

…Petitioner - Versus -

State of Manipur & 5 Ors.

…Respondents With MC(WP(C)) No. 902 of 2025 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA

ORDER

09-12-2025 [1] Heard Mr. M. Ibohal, learned counsel along with Mr. M.

Chitaranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner.

[2] The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned eviction order dated 17-11-2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West directing for eviction and demolition of the petitioner and his structures on the plots of land under Patta No. 1084/1957 (New) covered by C.S. Dag No. 1839/5478 measuring an area of 0.01568 acre and Patta No. 499/1084 (New) covered by C.S. Dag No. 1332/1839 measuring an area of 0.02432 acre located at Revenue Village No. 106-Hiyangthang, Imphal West and the impugned notice dated 18-11-2025 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Wangoi for vacation by 25-11-2025 and demolition of structures by 26-11-2025 on the is stated that the petitioner is the original owner of the two properties mentioned in the eviction notice and in respect of the money borrowed by him from respondent Nos. 5 & 6, a mortgage deed was executed. However, the same was, later on, found to be a registered sale deed and in the circumstances, the names of respondent Nos. 5 & 6 were recorded in the revenue record in place of the name of the petitioner and the impugned order was passed on the basis of the registered sale deed No. 319 of 2017. It is submitted that the impugned order was passed exercising the power under Sections 55 & 53 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960. Mr. M. Ibohal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the provisions of Sections 55 & 53 of MLR & LR Act, 1960 will not be attracted in the present case where Section 53 contemplates boundary dispute between two neighbouring pattadars and in the present case, there is no dispute between two neighbouring pattadars and the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West, has wrongly exercised the jurisdiction and it is prayed that the impugned order be stayed as the plots of land are still in possession and the structures are intact till now.

[3] Issue notice.

[4] Mr. Niranjan Sanasam, learned Government Advocate appearing through video conferencing, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 and the petitioner is directed to take steps to respondent Nos. 5 &

6 by speed post and dasti in addition.

[5] This Court has considered the material on record and finds substance in the submission of Mr. M. Ibohal, learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of Sections 53 & 55 of MLR & LR Act, 1960 are not attracted in the present case and that too impugned order was passed impugned order dated 17-11-2025 is stayed until further orders.

[6] Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 may file proper application for vacation of interim order, if so advised.

[7] List these cases on 02-02-2026.

[8] Furnish a copy of this order to the learned counsel appearing for the parties in the course of the day by Whatsapp or any other available modes. JUDGE Victoria N INGOM Digitally signed by NINGOMBAM Date: 2025.12.10