AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
40 paragraphs · 834 words[1] The petitioner filed Revenue Revision Case No. 11 of 2020 before the Revenue Tribunal, Imphal West, under Section 95 of the Manipur Land
Revenue & Land Reforms Act, 1960, challenging the Notice dated 20.02.2020 issued by the Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal West (Central), in
Demarcation Case No. 66/SDC/IW(C) in respect of the homestead land under Patta No. 85/1272 (old) 2262 (new), covered by C.S. Dag No. 16129,
admeasuring 0.0280 acres, situated at Village No. 85, Sagolband, Imphal West. By order dated 09.11.2020, the Revenue Tribunal disposed of the said
case with a direction to the Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal West (Central), to carry out the demarcation after notifying the interested persons/parties.
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
[2] Heard Mr. P. Tomcha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. Ch. Dhananjoy, learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting
respondents No. 1 â€" 8.
[3] Mr. P. Tomcha, learned counsel, would contend that the order under revision is unsustainable in law as the petitioner was not given an opportunity
to put forth his case. He would assert that the case was decided without even hearing the petitioner’s arguments.
[4] Perusal of the material placed on record demonstrates that the revision case was listed on 02.03.2020 initially and on that day, the Revenue
Tribunal stayed the impugned Notice dated 20.02.2020 while issuing notice to the respondents. The next date fixed for appearance and submission of
the case record was 16.03.2020. On 16.03.2020, the Tribunal noted the presence of the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for some
of the respondents and adjourned the matter to 20.04.2020, directing reissuance of notice to the respondents. On 20.04.2020, the Revenue Tribunal
noted the absence of the parties due to the National Lockdown owing to the Covid â€" 19 Pandemic and adjourned the matter to 29.07.2020. Again,
on that date, the Tribunal adjourned the matter to 03.11.2020 owing to the National Lockdown and directed reissuance of notice. On 03.11.2020, the
Tribunal noted that neither the petitioner nor his counsel was present at 01:00 p.m., when the case was put up for hearing, though the learned counsel
for the respondents was present. The Tribunal further noted that the Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal West (Central), had already submitted the case
record and proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the respondents. The case was posted for judgment and order on 09.11.2020. The impugned
order was passed on that date. Perusal thereof reflects that no further hearing took place on that day.
[5] In effect, the petitioner was not heard prior to the disposal of the case but his challenge to the Notice dated 20.02.2020, whereunder the Sub-
Deputy Collector, Imphal West (Central), proposed to undertake the impugned demarcation, stood nullified as the Revenue Tribunal directed such
demarcation to be completed.
[6] During the year 2020, the hearing of cases before Courts and Tribunals was severely crippled by the onset of the Covid â€" 19 Pandemic.
Instructions were put in place by High Courts all over the country limiting the hearing of cases before the Subordinate Courts and Tribunals. Similar
such instructions were put in place by this Court,vide Notification No. 63 dated 02.06.2020 and Notification No. 64 dated 10.06.2020. The latter
notification made it clear that unless both the parties moved a joint application for taking up a pending case, it was not to be considered for listing.
Despite this clear instruction, the Revenue Tribunal seems to have adjourned the subject revision case from time to time without any joint application
being filed. Further, though Courts and Tribunals were advised not to pass adverse orders in the absence of parties and their counsel during the Covid-
19 lockdown period, the Tribunal went ahead and decided the revision case despite noting the absence of the petitioner and his counsel.
[7] Apart from being in clear disregard of the specific instructions issued by this Court, the procedure adopted by the Tribunal was in flagrant violation
of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner’s challenge to the impugned Notice dated 20.02.2020 was not even addressed on its merits as he
had no opportunity to put forth his arguments though counsel. The order under revision dated 09.11.2020 is therefore liable to be set aside on this short
ground.
[8] The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed, setting aside the order dated 09.11.2020 passed by the Revenue Tribunal, Imphal West, in
Revenue Revision Case No. 11 of 2020 and remanding the said case to the Revenue Tribunal, Imphal West, for consideration afresh.
Given the fact that the situation has improved vastly in the context of the pandemic and physical hearing of cases may be resumed shortly, the
Tribunal shall endeavour to dispose of the revision, after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the parties and in accordance with law, expeditiously
and preferably within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
No order as to costs.