Kakching, District, Manipur & 3 Ors v. The State of Manipur
Case at a glance
- Bench
- M V MURALIDARAN
Outcome
Disposed of
accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
represented by the President Shri Ksh. Chhatradhari Singh, aged about 52 years, S/o Ksh. Iboton singh of Kakching Tural Wangma, PO & PS Kakching, District, Manipur & 3 Ors. – Versus – …Petitioners
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Principal Secretary/ Commissioner/Secretary(Home), Government of Manipur, Office at Secretariat, Babupara, PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001 & 6 Ors. …. Respondents. BEFORE HON’BLE THE ACTIING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.V. MURALIDARAN
27.02.2023 JUDGMENT & ORDER (oral)
The Joint Non-Government Voluntary Organization, represented by its President and the office bearers, have filed this writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus/certiorari 2 (i) to directing the respondents for restraining interference in any circumstances or in any manner influencing to create a dispute, confusion, agitation with sign-boards/ hoardings/banner or any other activities or manner indicating Tengnoupal/Chandel District within the jurisdiction of Kakching Sub-division, Waikhong Sub-Division, Kakching District, Manipur till the issuance of new census report; and, (ii) to direct the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation dated 10.1.2023 by issuing a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated time.
The entire controversy revolves around the villages that come within the jurisdiction of each of the three districts, viz., Tengnoupal, Chandel and Kakching Districts, inasmuch as names of certain villages find place in two districts. Complaining that the Tengnoupal and Chandel Districts are deliberately trying to snatch the jurisdiction of Kakching District, the petitioners sent a representation dated 10.1.2023 to the respondent authorities to clarify the proper and strict jurisdiction of Tengnoupal, Chandel and Kakching Districts, so as to avoid any unwanted situation in the near future and to maintain peace and prosperity between the three districts. As the said representation did not evoke any response, the petitioners have knocked the doors of this court by filing the writ petition for the relief stated supra. 3
Heard Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned GA for the respondents and perused the documents available on record.
It is beyond any cavil that, pending the writ petition, the Deputy Commissioner, Chandel, vide proceedings dated 17.2.2023 had disposed of the representation dated 10.1.2023 of the petitioners categorically holding that in the event of any dispute relating to the district boundaries, the matter will have to be decided by a Districts Boundary Commission headed by a Retired Judge of the High Court, with the Administrative Secretaries of Home, Revenue and Tribal Affairs and Hills of the State Government as Members. The relevant portion of the order dated 17.2.2023 is reproduced hereunder:
4. The Notification of Secretariat: Revenue Department, Government of Manipur dated 8th December, 2016 outlines that in the event of any disputes relating to the district boundaries, the matter will be decided by a Districts Boundary Commission headed by a Retired Judge of High Court, with Administrative Secretaries of Home, Revenue and Tribal Affairs & Hills of the State Government as members.
A bare perusal of the order dated 17.2.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chandel, makes it clear that the competent authority to deal with the grievance ventilated by the petitioner is the Districts Boundary Commission. 4
Inasmuch as the representation dated 10.1.2023 of the petitioners has been disposed of by the Deputy Commissioner, Chandel, by order dated
Operative part
17.2.2023, nothing further remains for adjudication in this writ petition and, accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. It is open to the petitioners to approach the Districts Boundary Commission for redressal of their grievance. There will be no order as to costs. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE John Kom
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Registration Act, 1908.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.