LAIREN v. Lamphel

Smt. Maibam Ongbi Mukhi Devi, now dead by her surviving Legal representatives, Smt. Maibam Ningol Usham Ongbi Modhu Devi, Resident of Thangmeiband Sinam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur (died) represented by her legal representatives Usham Ningol Ngangbam Ongbi Jandhabi Devi W/o Ng.Chandramani Singh of Thangmeiband Lourung Purel Leikai, P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur representatives, namely, Smt. Ngangbam (N) Ingudam (O) Haripriya Devi, aged about 40 years, D/o (L) Ng. Jandhabi Devi of Taothong Mamang Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Lamsang, Imphal West District, Manipur- 795146. represented by her (now deceased) … Respondents HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR BEFORE For the Petitioners : Mr. N.Ibotombi, Sr. Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. M.Swarnalata Devi, Advocate Date of Judgment & Order : 17.08.2022 CRP(CRP Art.227) No.20 of 2020 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) [1] This Civil Revision Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, arises out of the order dated 12.02.2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Imphal East, in Execution Case No.15 of 1989/12 of 2019 (Ref: Original Suit No.30 of 1972/127 of 1972). The petitioners herein are the judgment debtors in the execution proceedings. By the said order, the Executing Court issued certain directions. Aggrieved thereby, the judgment debtors are before this Court. [2] By order dated 16.03.2020, this Court suspended the operation of the order dated 12.02.2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Imphal East, presently under revision. The suspension is operative as on date. [3] Heard Mr. N.Ibotombi, learned senior counsel, for the petitioners; and Ms. M.Swarnalata Devi, learned counsel for the respondents, viz., the decree holders, being the legal representatives (LRs) of the deceased plaintiff in the suit. [4] Original Suit No.30 of 1972/127 of 1972 was instituted by the deceased plaintiff for possession of the suit land by evicting the defendants therefrom and by removing the structures put up by them. She also sought mesne profits/damages. By judgment and decree dated 28.02.1974, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the LRs of the deceased plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1974 before the learned District Judge, Manipur. This appeal was allowed on

17.07.1975 and a preliminary decree was issued to deliver possession of the suit land to the decree holders and permitting an enquiry to be made as to mesne profits from the date of institution of the suit until the date of delivery of possession. The Judgment and Decree dated 17.07.1975 were subjected to appeal by the defendants in the suit in RSA No.14 of 1975 before the Imphal Bench of the Gauhati High Court. This second appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on CRP(CRP Art.227) No.20 of 2020

05.09.1988. The application filed for restoration of the second appeal was also dismissed on 05.04.1989. Execution Case No.15 of 1989/12 of 2019 was instituted by the decree holders for execution of the decree dated 17.07.1975 for delivery of possession, leading to the order under revision being passed by the Executing Court. Pertinent to note, the judgment debtors, viz., the petitioners in this revision, did not even choose to appear before the Executing Court at that time. [5] It appears that one Awang Naharol Sebadol Club filed OS No. 60 of 1989 claiming the very same land which is subject matter of the decree dated

17.07.1975. Their prayer was that the said decree should not be held to be binding on them. This suit was dismissed on 15.05.1995. First Appeal No.18 of 1995 filed by the Club against the dismissal of their suit was also dismissed on 22.06.1998. Second Appeal No.12 of 1988 filed by the Club before the Imphal Bench of the Gauhati High Court was dismissed as not pressed on 03.11.2006. [6] Separately, the Secretary of Chingmeirong Mamang Awang Leikai Singlup Development Committee, Imphal East, filed Judl. Misc. Case No.209 of 2019 seeking to be impleaded as successors of the defendants/judgment debtors. However, the Executing Court rejected their application on 15.03.2019. [7] On 09.08.2019, the Executing Court passed an order directing that the judgment debtors and those claiming through them should be evicted and the standing structures in the suit land should be removed/dismantled so that possession of the land could be delivered to the decree holders. The eviction was directed to be carried out after the Sub-Deputy Collector, Heingang, conducted full demarcation of the suit land after prior notice to the owners of adjoining lands. [8] While so, a third party filed Judicial Miscellaneous Case No.523 of 2019 in the Execution Case claiming to be legal heir of one of the judgment debtors and CRP(CRP Art.227) No.20 of 2020 seeking to raise the question of executability of the decree dated 17.07.1975. This application was also rejected on 24.09.2019. [9] Pursuant to the order dated 09.08.2019 passed by the Executing Court, the Court Bailiff and officials of the Revenue Department and the Police Department went to the suit land and attempted to conduct demarcation on

23.09.2019. However, the same could not be completed on account of strong objection by local members of the Singlup of Chingmeirong Mamang Leikai and the authorities of Chingmeirong Upper Primary School, on the ground that there was mismatch in the schedule of land given in the order dated 09.08.2019. The issue raised by them was mainly in relation to names of the pattadars on the east of the suit land and the Dag numbers of the adjacent lands. The the objectors raised the issue that the names of the pattadars of the neighbouring lands as given in the Original Suit were different from the names of the present pattadars. [10] The Executing Court then passed an order on 16.10.2019 in order to ascertain the boundary/schedule of the suit land. The Sub-Deputy Collector, Heingang and the Assistant Survey and Settlement Officer-IX, Directorate of Settlement, Lamphelpat, were asked to submit a detailed report as to why the demarcation proceedings could not be conducted as directed by the Court. Report dated 20.01.2020 was submitted by the Director, Settlement and Land Record, Manipur, and after perusing the same, the Executing Court passed order dated

27.01.2020 directing that certain information be furnished to the Court. Relevant documents/Dag Chitha and Jamabandi were submitted by the decree holders through their learned counsel and the same were placed on record before the Executing Court. Upon perusing the said documents, the Executing Court noted that the discrepancy in the names of the pattadars of the neighbouring lands was CRP(CRP Art.227) No.20 of 2020 due to subsequent transferees names having been entered. The Executing Court also found that the schedule of the suit land, as given in the Original Suit, was almost the same as the schedule of the land given in the Original Suit No.60 of 1989 filed by Awang Naharol Sebadol Club. [11] The Executing Court traced the transfer of title leading to the difference in the names of pattadars of the neighbouring lands and found that there was no mismatch in the schedule of the suit land at that stage and the same was merely an attempt by the local people to sabotage the execution proceedings.

It is in these circumstances that the Executing Court directed as follows: 1) the judgment debtors, their men, agents and privies including the members of any local organization and/or local Meira Paibi Organization be evicted from the suit land and all standing structures be removed/dismantled/demolished. 2) After evicting the judgment debtors, their men, agents and privies including members of any local organization and/or local Meira Paibi Organization from the suit land, khas possession of the suit land be delivered to the decree holders. 3) Liberty was given to the decree holders to secure their possession of the suit land by proper fencing after delivery. 4) Full demarcation of the suit land be done after eviction of illegal occupants and delivery of possession to the decree holder. Prior notice of at least 3 days was to be given to the pattadars of the lands covered by C.S. Dag No.615 before the demarcation proceedings.

The Bailiff attached to the Court of the District Judge, Imphal East, was directed to execute the eviction process in accordance with the aforestated directions without notice to the judgment debtors as notice was already given to them on earlier occasions. Liberty was also given to the decree holders to take the assistance of Media/Press for coverage of the eviction process and the same was also directed to be placed before the Court. The Sub- CRP(CRP Art.227) No.20 of 2020 Deputy Collector, Heingang; the Assistant Survey and Settlement Officer-IX, Manipur; and the Officer-in-Charge of Lamphel Police Station were to render assistance for successful eviction proceedings being carried out as directed. [12] Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel, would contend that the demarcation of the suit land should be done first before the actual eviction. He would argue that the Executing Court erred in directing eviction to precede the demarcation.

However, it may be noted that it is not even the case of the judgment debtors that they own land adjacent to the suit land, whereby they can claim a boundary dispute, which would require demarcation being undertaken prior to their eviction. Be it noted that as per the schedule in O.S. No.30 of 1972, the suit land admeasuring 0.06 acre is situated at Laipham Khunou Village within Imphal East Tehsil, covered by Patta No.11/201 IET comprising New C.S.Dag No.615 and is bounded on the north by a School compound; on the south by a lane; on the east by the Ingkhol (homestead) of Thangjam Chura Singh and Khumbongmayum (O) Thagoi Devi; and on the west by a main road. Therefore, the suit land is abutted by pathways on two sides and by a school compound and a private homestead belonging to a third party on the other two sides. The judgment debtors are not claiming rights over these neighbouring private lands. [13] If the judgment debtors are in possession of the suit land itself, neither they nor anyone claiming through them have any right to continue there in the light of the judgment and decree dated 17.07.1975, which has admittedly attained finality.

It is not for the judgment debtors to espouse the cause of a third party, if any, who asserts an independent right to claim possession of the suit land. As already noted by the Executing Court, Awang Naharol Sebadol Club, the unsuccessful plaintiff in OS No.60 of 1989, and the Chingmeirong Mamang Awang CRP(CRP Art.227) No.20 of 2020 Leikai Singlup Development Committee, Imphal East, the unsuccessful applicant in Judicial Miscellaneous Case No.209 of 2019, have no right to object to the execution proceedings as they have already suffered adverse orders which attained finality. It is only if a third party, other than the judgment debtors and the aforestated club/institution, raises an independent claim to possession that recourse may have to be taken to the provisions of Order 21, Rules 97, 98, 99 and 100 CPC. That situation has not arisen as on date. [14] It is not open to the petitioners, being the judgment debtors, to raise any claim at this stage objecting to the execution of the Judgment and Decree dated 17.07.1975, having failed in their attempt to get the same set aside and having failed to appear before the Executing Court.