Laishram Sanatomba Singh vs Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal West (Central)-I & Anr

A. Guneshwar Sharma, J

[1] These matters are taken up on mentioning as unlisted item due to urgency involved in the matters.

[2] Heard Mr. Th. Modhu, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Th. Henba, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. Debendra, learned Dy. Advocate General assisted by Mr. A. Bheigya Meitei, learned junior Government counsel on behalf of the State respondents.

[3] This is the second application filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution. On the earlier occasion, the petitioner approached this Court by way of CRP(CRP Art. 227) No. 46 of 2025 on the ground that the appeal against the eviction order could not be heard by the appellate authority as the officer was on leave and vide order dated 25-09-2025, this Court directed the appellate authority to take up the matter pending before it and pass an appropriate order in terms of the applicable rule and till the appellate authority decides the appeal, there was stay of the eviction of the petitioner. After that the appellate authority vide order dated 08-10-2025 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and directed for fresh demarcation. In pursuance to the order dated 08-10-2025 passed by the appellate authority, the Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal West (Central) – I issued a notice dated 14-10-2025 for demarcation to be taken up on 18-10-2025 at 8.00 a.m. and vide order dated 16-10-2025, the Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal West (Central) - I, Imphal West Central rejected the request of the petitioner for postponement of the demarcation.

[4] By the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenged the demarcation notice dated 14-10-2025 and the order dated 16-10-2025 rejecting the application for postponement of demarcation. The prayers are reproduced hereinbelow :—

“It is, therefore, prayed that Your Lordship be pleased to:-

i. quash the impugned Notice dated 14/10/2025 issued in connection with Demarcation Case No 167/SDC/IW(C)-I dated 14/10/2025 by the Respondent No 1

ii. quash the impugned order dated 16/10/2025 passed by the Respondent No 1 in the margin of the application dated 16/10/2025 in Demarcation case No 167 of SDC/IW(C)-I dated 14/10/2025 thereby rejecting the said application for adjournment of the demarcation at for 15 days so as to enable the petitioner to participate physically the demarcation

iii. Issue any appropriate order or direction as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper for the ends of justice”

[5] Mr. Th. Modhu, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has not given enough time to prepare for demarcation proceedings and his application for postponement was wrongly rejected. It is submitted that since the petitioner has certain health issues, 15 days’ time may be given for the demarcation.

[6] On the other hand, Mr. H. Debendra, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State respondents, has raised on the question of maintainability of the present petition under Article 227 as the notice for demarcation cannot be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution and by rejecting the prayer for postponement of the demarcation, no right will be affected for the petitioner until and unless a final order is passed by the authority in the demarcation proceedings and the same can be challenged before the appropriate forum.

[7] This Court has perused the material on record and considered the submissions made at the Bar. This Court is of the opinion that the notice dated 14-10-2025 for demarcation on 18-10-2025 may not be a subject matter in the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. However, due to difficulty faced by the petitioner, the order dated 16-10-2025 passed by the SDC, Imphal West (Central) - I is modified that 7 days’ time may be granted to the petitioner for preparation of demarcation proceedings. Demarcation fixed on 18-10-2025 be rescheduled on 27-10-2025 at 8.00 a.m.

[8] The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above observation. MC(CRP(CRP Art.227) No. 87 of 2025 is closed.

[9] It is made clear that this Court does not express any opinion on the merit of the case and the authority shall carry out the demarcation proceedings in terms of the applicable laws.

[10] Furnish a copy of this order to the learned counsel appearing for the parties.