Shri Kharibam Romesh Singh & Ors. v. Smt. Haorongbam (Ningol) Asem (Ongbi) Bimola Devi

BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR

09.11.2022 …Respondents [1] This revision, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, arises out of the order dated 10.12.2018 passed by the Revenue Tribunal, Manipur, dismissing Revenue Revision Case No. 34 of 2018. By interim order dated 29.12.2018, this Court suspended the operation of the said order and the eviction order dated 04.07.2018. The interim order was extended thereafter from time to time and is still subsisting. [2] Heard Mr. T. Rajendra, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. H. Suraj, learned counsel, representing Mr. A. Golly, learned counsel for respondent No. 1; and Mr. R.K. Umakanta, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West, respondent No. 2. [3] Revenue Revision Case No. 34 of 2018 was filed by the petitioner herein assailing the eviction order dated 04.07.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West District, Eviction Case No. DC(IW)/8/11/Demarcation/2014. This eviction case was filed by respondent 2 No. 1 herein, vide application dated 05.12.2017, under Section 53(2) of the MLR & LR Act, 1960, in relation to the homestead land under patta No. 1071(Part) (Old) corresponding to patta No. 1924/4256(new) covered by C.S. Dag No. 10202, measuring an area of .0087 hectare, in Village No. 90- Thangmeiband, Imphal West District. This application was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West District, and thereupon, the Deputy Commissioner directed the Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal West (Central) to undertake demarcation and fixation of the boundaries of the land in question. Upon receiving the demarcation report dated 19.12.2017, the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West, opined that the petitioner herein and her family were in wrongful possession of the homestead land and directed their eviction therefrom, if they failed to vacate the land within the stipulated time. [4] It is an admitted fact that the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West, never put the petitioner herein or her family members on notice at any stage during the proceedings and the eviction order dated 04.07.2018 was passed behind their back. Though this aspect was raised before the Tribunal, it was brushed aside on the ground that the petitioner and her family members were present at the time measurement was undertaken by the authorities. However, the demarcation report submitted by the Circle Mandol to the Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal West (Central), does not indicate the presence of the petitioner and her family members during the inspection. The Circle Mandol merely stated therein that he had found that the petitioner and her family had wrongfully possessed the said homestead land. Further, even at this stage, it is not the case of the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West, that the petitioner and 3 her family members were put on notice at any stage during the proceedings. The eviction order was therefore passed in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and more particularly, the rule of audi alteram partem. [5] In this regard, reference may be made to the observations of the Supreme Court in Aligarh Muslim University and others Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan [(AIR) 2000 SCC 2783]. The Supreme Court noted therein that in certain situations, an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice need not be set aside - for example, where no prejudice is caused to the person concerned; or if the quashing of the order which is in breach of natural justice is likely to result in revival of another illegal order; or, if no other conclusion would be possible on the admitted or indisputable facts. The Supreme Court however added the caveat that the last premise of no other conclusion being possible on admitted facts would be an exception and, therefore, great care must be taken in applying it. Again, in State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha [(2010) 2 SCC 772], the Supreme Court affirmed that the object of the principles of natural justice is to ensure that not only is justice done but it is manifestly seen to be done. In Darshan Lal Nagpal (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and others [(2012) 2 SCC 327], the Supreme Court again highlighted the importance of complying with the rule of audi alteram partem. [6] Trite to state, when an adverse order affecting the civil rights of a party is proposed to be passed by an authority, such party has to be put on notice and given an effective opportunity of hearing before doing so. Eviction from the land in her possession clearly caused prejudice to the petitioner and 4 adversely affected her rights. Thus, this is not a case where no other possible conclusion could be drawn and it was for the petitioner to reply to the claims put forth by respondent No. 1. Without affording her an opportunity to do so, the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West, ought not to have straightaway passed an eviction order against her. [7] This Court is therefore constrained to set aside the eviction order dated 04.07.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West, on this short ground, without going into the merits of the matter. The order dated

10.12.2018 passed by the Revenue Tribunal, Manipur, confirming the said order in Revenue Revision Case No. 34 of 2018 is also set aside. The matter is remanded to the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West, for consideration of the case afresh, after due notice and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein. It is made clear that this Court did not venture into the merits of the matter and the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West, shall consider the matter independently on merits and in accordance with The CRP is allowed. No order as to costs. law. Indrajeet CHIEF JUSTICE