IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL C.R.P. (CRP.ART.227) NO. 32 OF 2014

Transcription

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL C.R.P. (CRP.ART.227) NO. 32 OF 2014 The Planning and Development Authority, Manipur through its Secretary, having its Office at North AOC, P.O. Imphal, Imphal East District, Manipur. --PETITIONER. -Versus- 1. Raja Dumbra Memorial Trust, having its Principal Office at Purana Rajbari, Nongmeibung, Imphal East District, P.S. Porompat, P.O. Imphal through R.K. Tikendrajit Sanatomba Singh son of late Raja Dumbra, Settlor of Trust. 2. R.K. Norendra Singh, aged about 65 years, grandson of late Raja Dumbra of Purana Rajbari, Nongmeibung, Imphal East District, P.S. Porompat, P.O. Imphal, Manipur. 3. The State of Manipur through the Chief Secretary. 4. The Commissioner (Revenue), Government of Manipur. 5. The District Collector, Imphal East District. 6. The Director of Settlement and Land Records.... RESPONDENTS. BEFORE HON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE L.K. MOHAPATRA For the Petitioner For the Respondents :: Mr. N. Ibotombi, Sr. Advocate :: Mr. M. Rarry, Advocate Date of hearing :: Date of Judgment/Order ::

2 2 JUDGMENT & ORDER This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 13 th March, 2014 passed by the learned District Judge, Manipur East in Civil Appeal No. 5 of [2] The private respondents No.1 and 2 filed Original Suit No. 39 of 2011 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) No.II, Manipur East for declaration that the defendants therein (present respondents 3 to 6) are rank trespassers with respect to the suit land, a decree for ejectment of the defendants from the suit land and also a decree for confirmation of possession of the plaintiffs with consequential reliefs such as permanent injunction. In the said suit, the present petitioner was not made a party. The suit had been filed against the Respondents 3 to 6. The learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) No.II, Manipur vide judgment and decree dated , allowed the suit and restrained the defendants therein (present respondents Nos.3 to 6) from causing further demolition of the school building and making any further construction on the suit land except for educational purposes. Challenging the above judgment and decree, an appeal was preferred by the present petitioner before the learned District Judge, Manipur. The said appeal bearing No.5 of 2014 having been dismissed, the present Revision has been filed. [3] The case of the respondents No.1 and 2 before the learned Civil Judge is that the disputed property belonged to one late Raja Dumbra Singh who donated the same for construction of a school from Primary to High School level. The school was named after the donor late Raja Dumbra Singh. The respondent No.1 is the Trust created by the family members of late Raja Dumbra Singh.

3 3 The school was initially started as a private institution and later on was recognised as an aided institution. Subsequently, it was taken over by the Government as a Government school. The ownership/title of the land and building as well as removable properties had never been transferred or assigned to the State Government and school had been handed over to the State Government to run it as an educational institution. The further case of the respondents No.1 and 2 is that the Jamabandi issued on in respect of the disputed property stands in the name of late Raja Dumbra Singh with address of the High School at Purana Rajbari. The land revenue had also been paid by the said respondents. Having come to know that Raja Dumbra Singh High School has been abolished by a Government order dated issued by the Commissioner, Education (S), Govt. of Manipur, the suit was filed against the State of Manipur and its officials for the relief stated earlier. [4] The case of the present petitioner is that by order of the Secretary, Planning & Development Authority, Manipur at Annexure A/2, a letter was written to the Secretary, Municipal Administration, Housing and Urban Development, Govt. of Manipur for declaration of a scheme on the basis of a resolution passed in one of the meetings of the Planning and Development Authority, Manipur that the existing site of Raja Dumbra Singh High School be declared as a scheme area for the purpose of development of a Commercial Centre. Approval was accorded by the State Government to make such declaration on 26 th May, 2009 in Annexure A/3. After approval was accorded by the State Government, vide Gazette notification dated 19 th June, 2009, the site of Raja Dumbra Singh High School and it s adjoining khas land areas were declared as a scheme area for the purpose of

4 4 development of a commercial complex. A further decision was taken by the Education Department (School Section), Govt. of Manipur in Annexure A/5 to hand over the suit land to MAHUD for taking up follow up action for the development of a commercial complex. According to the petitioner, the land having been declared as a scheme area, the Planning and Development Authority, Manipur (Petitioner) should have been made a party in the suit. Further case of the petitioner is that without making the petitioner a party in the suit, a decree was obtained from the Court of the learned Civil Judge in the manner as stated earlier. Since the petitioner is affected by the decree, it filed the appeal against the decree of the learned Civil Judge along with a prayer for leave of Court to file the appeal. [5] Shri N. Ibotombi, learned sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that in the appeal, the petitioner had prayed for grant of leave to prefer an appeal and without deciding the question as to whether leave of court should be granted or not, the appeal was dismissed on merit on the ground that the petitioner had no vested right over the suit land. [6] Shri M. Rarry, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 submitted that on reading of the impugned order, it would be clear that though the learned District Judge, Manipur East has not specifically passed any order granting leave, he entertained the appeal, heard on merit and decide the appeal against the petitioner. According to Shri Rarry, land was recorded in the name of late Raja Dumbra Singh who had donated the land for the purpose of running a school. All the documents placed before the Trial Court clearly indicate that late Raja Dumbra Singh was the owner of the land.

5 5 The State Government having taken over the school, for the purpose of declaration and injunction, the State authorities were only required to be made parties in the suit and the petitioner does not come into the picture at all. Therefore, the petitioner was not made a party in the suit. It was further contended by Shri M. Rarry, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 that in order to maintain the appeal, it was required to be proved as to how the petitioner is affected by the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge. The learned District Judge, Manipur on perusal of the documents having found that petitioner has no vested right in the land rightly rejected the appeal. [7] There is no dispute that the petitioner was not a party in the suit. The question with regard to the maintainability of the appeal at its instance is also not challenged. In the case of State of Punjab & ors vs- Amar Singh and anr reported in AIR 1974 SC 994, it was held that a person who is not a party to a decree or order may with the leave of Court, prefer an appeal from such decree or order if he is either bound by the order or is aggrieved by it or is prejudicially affected by it. From the appeal memo, it appears that in paragraph 2 thereof, the petitioner sought for leave to permit it to file the appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge. Though in the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge has not recorded anything with regard to grant of leave for filing an appeal, a mention has been made regarding such prayer for grant of leave in the impugned order and learned District Judge proceeded for deciding the appeal on merit. Paragraph 7 of the impugned order, learned District Judge found merit in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the present respondents No.1 and 2 that the present petitioner has not locus standi

6 6 to file the appeal as it has no vested right over the suit land specially when the State Government does not choose to prefer an appeal. To what extent, the above finding of the learned District Judge is correct can be verified from the documents produced before the Trial Court at the time of hearing of the suit as well as with reference to certain provisions of the Manipur Town and Country Planning Act, The documents filed in the suit indicate that ownership of the land and building were with late Raja Dumbra Singh and the school had been constructed on the disputed land, the same having been donated by late Raja Dumbra Singh. The school had been initially started as a private school which subsequently got aid from the State Government. Thereafter, the school was taken over by the State Government. Under the above Act of 1975, for the purpose of execution of a scheme by the Planning and Development Authority, Manipur land can be transferred. Section 47 of the Act provides that State Government may, for the purpose of enabling the authority to execute the scheme, transfer any Government land to the Authority with adjoining area covered by the scheme. Explanation to the said section further provides that Government land means any land belonging to the State Government. In the present case, the documents produced before the learned District Judge in course of hearing proved that the land belong to the late Raja Dumbra Singh and it was donated for the purpose of running a school. Subsequently, a Trust was created consisting members of the family of late Raja Dumbra Singh. Therefore, Govt. of Manipur could not have transferred the said land under section 47 of the Act to the petitioner Authority for execution of the scheme, not being the owner thereof. No documents were produced before the Trial Court to prove

7 7 title of the Govt. of Manipur over the suit land. If the Govt. of Manipur had no title over the suit land, it could not transfer the same to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner under no circumstances be considered to be the owner of the disputed land, the transferer having no title over the same. [8] The State Authorities namely respondent No.3 to 6 in this revision who were defendants in the suit did not prefer any appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge. When the State Government does not claim title over the property in dispute, it could not also transfer such land to the Petitioner-Authority. Therefore, learned District Judge rightly accepted the submission made on behalf of the present respondents No.1 and 2 that the petitioner has no vested right, State Government having not challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge in the said suit claiming title. [9] So far as the technical objection raised by the learned sr. counsel Mr. Ibotombi is concerned, I find that though the learned District Judge has not passed any specific order granting leave for filing the appeal, the order itself shows that the learned District Judge, heard the appeal on merit and dismissed the same. Therefore, grant of leave for filing the appeal is presumed, otherwise the learned District Judge could not have heard the appeal on merit. [10] For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in the Revision and accordingly dismiss the same. Chief Justice bidya

8 8