Shri A.S. Wungayung Peter v. The State of Manipur

3. Shri A.L. Fareng, resident of Viewland, P.O. & P.S. – Ukhrul, Ukhrul District, Manipur, PIN – 795142.

4. Shri Akham Luikham, resident of Viewland, P.O. & P.S. – Ukhrul, Ukhrul District, Manipur, PIN – 795142.

5. Shri K. Maringthei, resident of Phungreitang East, P.O. & P.S. – Ukhrul, Ukhrul District, Manipur, PIN – 795142.

6. Shri KLSM, resident of Phungreitang East, P.O. & P.S. – Ukhrul, Ukhrul District, Manipur, PIN – 795142.

7. (a) Smt. Athem Luikham, aged about 58 years, w/o late Akham Luikham, resident of Viewland, P.O. & P.S. – Ukhrul, Ukhrul District, Manipur, PIN – 795142. (b) Mr. Ngarung Luikham, aged about 32 years, s/o late Akham Luikham, resident of Viewland, P.O. & P.S. – Ukhrul, Ukhrul District, Manipur, PIN – 795142. (c) Miss Yansing Luikham, aged about 31 years, d/o late Akham Luikham, resident of Viewland, P.O. & P.S. – Ukhrul, Ukhrul District, Manipur, PIN – 795142. (d) Mr. Sorei Luikham, aged about 27 years, s/o late Akham Luikham, resident of Viewland, P.O. & P.S. – Ukhrul, Ukhrul District, Manipur, PIN – 795142. (e) Miss Shunrinya Luikham, aged about 24 years, d/o late Akham Luikham, resident of Viewland, P.O. & P.S. – Ukhrul, Ukhrul District, Manipur, PIN – 795142. CRP(C.R.P. Art.227) No. 45 of 2018 (f) Mr. Sorei Luikham, aged about 21 years, s/o late Akham Luikham, resident of Viewland, P.O. & P.S. – Ukhrul, Ukhrul District, Manipur, PIN – 795142. …LRs of the deceased respondent No. 4 B E F O R E HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR …Respondents For the petitioner : Mr. Mark Khapai, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Umakanta, GA; Mr. S. Devajit, Advocate; Mr. I. Sandeep, Advocate Date of order : 09-08-2022 O R D E R [1] This civil revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, arises out of the order dated 31-03-2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Ukhrul, in Judl. Misc. Case No. 8 of 2017 (Ref: O.S. (L.A.) Case No. 1 of 2016). By the said order, the learned District Judge refused to condone the delay of 2642 days on the part of the applicant in the miscellaneous case in seeking to be brought on record as the legal representative of the deceased claimant No. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant is before this Court. [2] Heard Mr. Mark Khapai, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner; Mr. S. Devajit and Mr. I. Sandeep, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 7 (a), (b) & (d); and Mr. R.K. Umakanta, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State of Manipur. CRP(C.R.P. Art.227) No. 45 of 2018 [3] By order dated 27-07-2018 passed in this revision, this Court stayed the proceedings in O.S. (L.A.) Case No. 1 of 2016 on the file of the learned District Judge, Ukhrul. [4] An extent of 22.08 acres in Ukhrul District was acquired for construction of the 84 RCC (GREF) Headquarters, Ukhrul. Award dated 20-07-1998 was passed by the Collector, Land Acquisition, Ukhrul, quantifying the compensation payable for the acquisition at ₹. 39,74,177/-. However, the Collector found that there was a dispute with regard to the claimants who would be entitled to this compensation amount. Therefore, in para 6 of the Award, he opined that the dispute as to the persons to whom the compensation was to be paid had to be referred under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1894’), for the decision of the Civil Court. In consequence, letter dated 12-07-1999 was addressed to the Court by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector (LA), Ukhrul, making a reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 and also under Section 30 thereof. Thereupon, the learned District Judge, Ukhrul took up the matter as O.S. (L.A.) Case No. 1 of 2016. The father of the petitioner, late A.S. Wungnaoyo Zimik, figured as claimant No. 6 in the said suit. He died on 29-12-2008. The petitioner claimed that he was ignorant of the land acquisition proceedings and the case pending under Sections 18 & 30 of the Act of 1894. He further claimed that he came to know of this litigation only when he received summons from the National Lok Adalat, to which the case was referred in November, 2016. He thereupon the subject miscellaneous case seeking condonation of delay in being brought on record CRP(C.R.P. Art.227) No. 45 of 2018 as the legal representative of the deceased claimant No. 6. However, the learned District Judge, Ukhrul, found that the claimant No. 6 had also not participated in the proceedings and held that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay on his part in being brought on record as his legal representative. [5] At the outset, it may be noticed that owing to the delay in timely measures being taken after the death, the suit stood abated insofar as claimant No. 6 was concerned. Therefore, steps had to be taken first to ask for condonation of the delay in seeking the setting aside of the abatement and then to set aside the abatement. Only then would the LR pray for being brought on record. In effect, three applications had to be filed and not one — (i) an application to condone the delay in seeking setting aside of the abatement; (ii) an application to set aside the abatement; and (iii) an application to bring the LRs on record. The single application filed by the petitioner was therefore utterly misconceived. [6] That being one aspect of the matter, the Trial Court ought to have noted that this was not a usual suit where a plaintiff was seeking relief. The reference made to the learned District Judge, Ukhrul, was under Sections 18 and 30 of the Act of 1894. The Award quantified the compensation to be paid and the reference for enhancement thereof under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 was before the learned District Judge, Ukhrul. That apart there was a dispute as to the apportionment and distribution of the quantified compensation and a reference was also made to the learned District Judge, Ukhrul, under Section 30 of the Act of 1894. While dealing with such CRP(C.R.P. Art.227) No. 45 of 2018 references, the learned District Judge, Ukhrul, ought to have been mindful of the nature and scope of the litigation and ought not to have been rigid in his approach towards impleadment of the legal representative of one of the deceased claimants. Unless all the claimants are before the Court, the Court would not be in a position to effectively decide the dispute under Section 30 of the Act of 1894. Therefore, dismissal of the condone delay petition on the ground that the petitioner failed to disclose sufficient cause, when he specifically stated that he had no knowledge of the proceedings till he received summons from the National Lok Adalat in November, 2016, cannot be countenanced. It may be noted that there was no rebuttal to this claim and it was acceptable on the face of it, in the absence of contradiction. [7] However, as the petitioner failed to file appropriate applications and the application, as filed, was insufficient for the Court to act upon, this revision petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to file appropriate applications, as indicated hereinabove, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such applications being filed, the learned District Judge, Ukhrul, shall consider the same on their own merits and in accordance with law, keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Victoria CHIEF JUSTICE CRP(C.R.P. Art.227) No. 45 of 2018