Manipur High Court
R.K. (N) Konsam (O) Sanatomba @ … vs State Of Manipur & 4 Ors on 4 March, 2025
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
NINGOM Digitally signed
by NINGOMBAM
BAM VICTORIA
Item Nos. 1-2
Date: 2025.03.05
VICTORIA 15:40:32 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 175 of 2025
R.K. (N) Konsam (O) Sanatomba @ Sanatombi Devi.
...Petitioner
- Versus -
State of Manipur & 4 Ors.
...Respondents
With
MC(WP(C)) No. 169 of 2025
B EF O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
ORDER
04-03-2025
Present Mr. H. Maipaksana, learned legal aid counsel for the
petitioner.
Issue notice.
Mr. A.C. Themreichan, learned counsel assisting Mr. M. Rarry,
learned senior counsel, accepts notice on behalf of official respondent Nos.
1, 2, 3 & 4 and Mr. R.K. Milan, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of
private respondent No. 5. Hence, service is complete on the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents pray for three weeks’ time for
filing counter affidavits.
By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the letter dated
25-02-2025 issued by the SDO, Porompat, directing the petitioner to vacate
the premises, order dated 29-02-2024 passed in Revenue Eviction Case No.
4 of 2023 by the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East and order dated
07-01-2025 passed in Revenue Revision Case No. 47 of 2024 by the
learned Revenue Tribunal, Manipur.
Page 1 of 2
It is stated that without considering the case of the petitioner that she
is in occupation of the land for the last 40 years, the impugned orders and
letter have been issued by the authorities. It is prayed that during the
pendency of the present writ petition, the eviction order be stayed.
On the other hand, Mr. M. Rarry, learned senior counsel for the State
respondents, submits that the writ petition is not maintainable in the present
form and the impugned letter dated 25-02-2025 has already been complied
with for eviction of petitioner from the premises.
Mr. R.K. Milan, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, submits that
respondent No. 5 has already taken possession of the said land and vide
order dated 29-02-2024, the petitioner was directed to vacate the land in
question. Mr. R.K. Milan, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, has
produced three photographs before this Court to support his submission. It
is pointed out that no interim order is warranted in the present case.
Mr. H. Maipaksana, learned counsel for the petitioner, denies the
submission of the respondents that the petitioner has already been evicted
from the premises. It is stated that she is still in possession.
Considering the disputed facts pleaded before this Court, it will suffice
to order status quo as on date be maintained till the next date.
List these cases on 04-04-2025.
Registry is directed to reflect the name of Mr. R.K. Milan, learned
counsel for the private respondent in the cause list.
JUDGE
Victoria
Page 2 of 2
[ad_1]
Source link