Okram Ranjit Singh, & Anr. vs Heikrujam Ibomcha Singh, & Ors.

This application filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 28.10.2015 passed by the Presiding Officer, Revenue Tribunal, Manipur in Rev. Misc. Case No.25/15 (arising out of Rev. Revision Case No. 96/14) whereby Sub Deputy Collector( for short SDC), Bashikhong, Imphal East was directed to mutate the land measuring 0.165 acre (Southern portion) of patta No.70(New) in the name of the respondents and rest of 0.165 acre northern portion in the name of the petitioner. At the same time, consequent order passed by the SDC, Bashikhong Imphal East on 10.11.2015 in Rev. Misc. Case No.24/15/SDC/B/IE has also been sought to be quashed whereby southern half of the land appertaining to patta No.70/New and CS Dag No.476 measuring an area of 0.165 was ordered to be mutated in the name of the respondent whereas rest northern half of the said land measuring 0.65 acre was ordered to be mutated in favour of the petitioners.

Before coming to the issue, cases of the parties, as made out, need to be taken notice of. It is the case of the petitioners that a piece of homestead land measuring an area of 0.33 acre appertaining to patta No.70(new), CS Dag No.476/1907 was inherited by one late Okram Ibohal Singh from his father. During his life time, he transferred a portion of the said land measuring 0.11 acre to his eldest son, Okram Ranjit Singh(Petitioner) and another portion measuring 0.11 to his younger son, Okram Ashakumar Singh (petitioner No.2) and the remaining portion of 0.11 acre remained with said late Okram Ibohal Singh. Upon transferring the land as stated above, an application was filed for mutation which was registered as Rev. Misc. Case o.2/SDC/IE(B) of 2005 before the SDC, Bashikhong who passed an order on 19.12.2005 for mutating the land in favour of the petitioners and also for separation of patta in accordance with mutation order. In course of time said Okram Ibohal Singh died on 16.12.2012 leaving behind his wife Okram (O) Madhumati Devi and 2 sons, one of the petitioners in this case. Said Madhumati Devi died in the year 2014. Thereupon, the respondents filed a Revenue Revision Petition No.96 of 2014 before the Presiding Officer, Revenue Tribunal, Imphal challenging the said order dated 19.12.2005.

The case which was made out by the respondents is that a piece of homestead land measuring .33 acre appertaining to patta 70(New) covered under CS Dag No.476 was recorded in the name of Okram Ibohal Singh, but it was jointly possessed by Okram Ibohal Singh and ancestors of respondent. It is the case of the respondents that Sapam (N) Ibecha Devi, the grand mother of the respondents, persuaded Okram Pishak Devi (the mother of Okram Ibohal Singh) to sell them half of the portion of the said land and accordingly it was sold to said Sapam (N) Ibecha Devi. Upon the death of Sapam (N) Ibecha Devi, her son, Heikrujam Gourachand Singh inherited the property and thereby he possessed half of the land whereas Okram Ibohal Singh was possessing rest half of the land. But the entire land remained recorded in the name of Okram Ibohal Singh. After the death of Gourachand Singh, the respondents being the surviving sons, inherited the said land, that is half portion, of the land measuring .33 acre. It is also the case that they had been paying land revenue to the State authority. Further case is that in spite of respondents possessing half of the land, the petitioners as well as their father filed an application registered as Revenue Misc. Case No.2/SDC/B/IE of 2005 for mutating their names and also for separating the patta with respect to an area measuring .11 acre in the name of each of the petitioners and .11 acre in the name of Okram Ibohal Singh. Upon filing such application, SDC, without issuing notice to the respondents, passed an order for mutating the land in the name of the appellants and father and when the respondents came to know about the said order, they did file Revision Application before the Revenue Tribunal which was registered as Revenue Revision Case No.96 of 2014.

The learned Tribunal, having taken into account the case of the respondents that the ancestors of the respondents were in permissive possession over the land and subsequently the land which the respondents claim, was purchased by the grand-mother, Sapam Ibecha Devi and since then the respondents have been coming into possession of the land, still no notice was issued to them, found the order dt. 19.12.2005 passed by the SDC, Bashikhong, Imphal East was found to be erroneous and hence was set aside. However, the learned Tribunal reserved liberty to the parties to approach the concerned authority so that authority, after giving opportunities to the parties, may pass order after taking into account the field verification report.

Accordingly, the respondents filed Misc. Application before the SDC, but the SDC, according to the case of the respondents, did not take up the matter for considerable period of time and as such the respondents did file Revenue Misc. Case No.25 of 2015 before the Tribunal with the prayer to direct the SDC to take up proceeding and to dispose of the same.

In spite of such prayer the Tribunal, instead of disposing of the application by directing the SDC to decide the case, called for status report from SDC who submitted its report stating therein that the respondents are the sons of H. Gourachand Singh whereas appellants are the sons of Okram Ibohal Singh. Subsequently, SDC again submitted a report on 16.10.2015 informing therein that order under which land measuring .11 acre was ordered to be recorded in favour of each of the petitioner, has been cancelled. Consequently, the land measuring .33acre remained recorded in the name of Okram Ibohal Singh. Further, it was reported that from the spot inquiry, it transpires that over the southern portion of the land measuring .165 acre is in possession of the respondents whereas rest of the half of the land measuring .165 acre is in possession of the petitioner. The Tribunal, taking into account the report of the SDC, directed the SDC, Bashikhong, Imphal East vide its order dated 25.10.2015, to mutate the land. Accordingly, SDC Imphal East mutated the land measuring .165 acres (southern portion) in favour of Respondent vide its order dated 10.11.2015. Being aggrieved with that order dt. 28.10.2015 and order dated 10.11.15 this application has been filed.

Mr. W.Darakishore, learned counsel submitted that it is the case of the respondents that he was in permissive possession over the land in question and that the grand-mother of the respondents had purchased the land but not a single piece of document relating to purchase was filed. Still the Tribunal passed the order on an application where prayer had been made to direct the SDC to dispose of the case, without giving opportunity to the petitioner to be heard in the matter and thereby the Tribunal committed gross illegality and hence on this count alone the impugned order is fit to be set aside.

On such plea being taken, I called upon the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, Mr. Binoy, to apprise the court as to whether notice had been issued to the appellant before the case was disposed of. Being not satisfied with the answer given, I examined the LCR which never indicates that any notice was issued to the petitioner before the case was disposed of. In such event, deciding a matter in favour of the respondent adverse to the interest of the petitioner without hearing him, is certainly against settled norm and thereby impugned order suffers from illegality. Accordingly, it is set aside. Consequently, the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal so that the Tribunal may pass a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing the parties.

Thus, this application stands allowed.

Let the LCR be transmitted to the court concerned immediately.