Smt. Bachaspatimayum Bijenti Devi v. Khwairakpam Kumarjao Singh

2. Shri Khwairakpam Rotonmani Singh, aged about 77 years, s/o Late Kh. Yumjao Singh of Awang Sekmai Bazaar, P.O. and P.S. Sekmai, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin- 795136.

3. Smt. Konthoujam Nandeshwori Devi, aged about 43 years, w/o K. Shyamchand Singh of Awang Leikinthabi Shantipur, P.O. and P.S. Sekmai, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin-795136.

4. Shri Kshetrimayum Lilabanta Singh, aged about 54 years, s/o Ksh. Thambal Singh, of Awang Sekmai, Parao Mamang Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Sekmai, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin- 795136. …Respondents HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR BEFORE

07.07.2022 Aggrieved by the dismissal of her Revenue Revision Case No. 13 of 2021 by the Revenue Tribunal, Manipur at Lamphelpat, vide order dated

30.11.2021, the petitioner therein filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2 Heard Mr. P. Tomcha, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. Ch. Robinchandra, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. In her Revenue Revision Case No. 13 of 2021 filed before the Tribunal under Section 95 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, the petitioner had challenged the order dated 05.10.2012 passed by the Sub- Deputy Collector, Imphal West (North), Sekmai, in Mutation Case No. 948 of 2012; the order dated 28.04.2017 passed by the Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal West (North), Sekmai, in Misc. Case No. 85 of 2017; and the order dated

19.07.2019 passed by the Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal West(N), Sekmai, in Mutation Case No. 1019 of 2019. It was her case that late B. Tomba Sharma, her husband, was the owner of the agricultural land admeasuring 0.23 acres, covered by C.S. Dag. No. 10/271 under Patta No. 24/438(new) of Revenue Village No. 28-Leikinthabi, Lamsang Sub-Division, Imphal West District. She claimed that respondent No. 3 threatened to dispossess her and her family from the said land in March, 2020, asserting ownership over the western portion of the said land. According to her, it was only when she filed applications for obtaining copies of the Jamabandi, she came to know of the impugned orders. As per the order dated 05.10.2012 passed in Mutation Case No. 948 of 2012, respondent No. 1’s name was mutated in the revenue records by cancelling the name of the deceased husband of the petitioner. This mutation was effected on the basis of respondent No. 1’s claim that he had purchased the land from the petitioner’s late husband. This sale transaction was stated to have taken place under kutcha sale deed dated 25.08.2012 executed by the petitioner’s late husband. 3 The petitioner asserted before the Tribunal that the Revenue Authority failed to abide by the procedure prescribed under the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, while effecting the mutation. However, the Tribunal perused the records pertaining to the mutation cases and the miscellaneous case and found that the petitioner as well as her deceased husband were parties to Mutation Case No. 948 of 2012. This was evident from the Form No. 16 – ‘Report of Mutation’, which formed the basis of the said mutation case as well as the order dated 05.10.2012 passed therein by the Sub- Deputy Collector, Imphal West (North), Sekmai. The Tribunal found that the petitioner and her husband had affixed their respective signatures in the order sheet. The petitioner had done so in the capacity of a witness. Owing to these circumstances, the Tribunal was not inclined to interfere with the mutation order and accordingly dismissed the revision. Mr. P. Tomcha, learned counsel, would contend that the Tribunal erred in overlooking various lapses on the part of the competent authority while carrying out the mutation. He would point out that the ‘Report of Mutation’ was submitted on 06.10.2012, as is clearly evident from Form 16, but, surprisingly, the order of mutation is dated 05.10.2012. He would further point out that the claim of the other respondents is based on a kutcha sale deed and that such a sale transaction has no value in the eye of law. Learned counsel, however, has no explanation to offer as to why the petitioner and her deceased husband participated in the said mutation proceedings and affixed their signatures in the order sheet of the Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal West (North), Sekmai. 4 In so far as the discrepancy in the date is concerned, it is possible that it was a bonafide error on the part of the competent authority. As regards the validity of the sale transaction, this Court is informed that the respondents herein have filed a Civil Suit before the competent Civil Court seeking declaration of their title in relation to the subject land and the said Suit is pending consideration. That being so, it would be for the Civil Court to adjudicate upon the validity of the sale transaction in the context of the respondents’ claim for declaration of their title. As the subject mutation was effected as long back as in the year 2012, this Court is of the opinion that no cause is made out to interfere with the same at this stage, when the competent Civil Court is seized of the matter. The entries in the revenue records would have to abide by the final decision of the Civil Court on proper consideration of all the issues and the evidence. Trite to state, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the mutation in favour of the respondents while deciding their Suit on merits. Making this position clear, this revision petition is disposed of. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Indrajeet CHIEF JUSTICE