Manipur High Court
Ngangbam Haripriya Devi vs State Of Manipur & 2 Ors on 22 January, 2025
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
NINGOM Digitally signed
by NINGOMBAM
BAM VICTORIA
Date: 2025.01.24
VICTORIA 10:58:49 +05'30'
Item No. 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 47 of 2025
Ngangbam Haripriya Devi.
...Petitioner
- Versus -
State of Manipur & 2 Ors.
...Respondents
B EF O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
ORDER
22-01-2025
[1] Heard Mr. Kh. Tomba, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Niranjan Sanasam, learned Government Advocate for the respondents
appearing through video conferencing.
[2] By the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for directing the
Sub-Deputy Collector, Heingang to conduct demarcation over the State
Khas lands which are lying adjacent to the piece of her homestead land.
[3] It is stated that there is a piece of homestead land measuring an
area of .06 acre covered by C.S. Dag No. 615 corresponding to patta No.
212 (Old) and 201(New) situated at Revenue Village No. 11-Laipham Siphai,
Imphal East District, Manipur which is recorded in the name of the petitioner
in the revenue records. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that
there are State Khas lands adjacent to the homestead land of the petitioner
measuring (i) an area of .18 acre under C.S. Dag No. 189 situated at
Revenue Village No. 11-Laipham Siphai; (ii) an area of .30 acre under Dag
No. 292 of the same Revenue village; and (iii) .04 acre covered by C.S. Dag
No. 200 of the same Revenue village.
WP(C) No. 47 of 2025 Page 1 of 2
[4] The petitioner submitted a representation dated 30-08-2024 to the
SDC, Heingang for demarcation u/s 52 of the Manipur Land Revenue and
Land Reforms Act, 1960 and for eviction of the encroachers u/s 130 of the
Act. The petitioner also submitted similar representation to the Deputy
Commissioner, Imphal East. It is submitted that the two representations are
still pending before the authorities.
[5] Mr. Niranjan Sanasam, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents, has pointed out that the representation is not maintainable in
the present form as the SDC exercising function under u/s 52 of the
MLR&LR Act, 1960 is a Court as defined within the meaning of Section 81(1)
of the Act and if the petitioner is aggrieved by any of the action or order
passed by the SDC, Heingang, appropriate remedies are provided under
MLR&LR Act. It is also pointed out that demarcation case has to be filed as
an application before the Court not as a representation.
[6] Mr. Kh. Tomba, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that
he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to approach
the appropriate forum as per law.
[7] Recording the submissions made at the Bar, the writ petition is
dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach an appropriate forum as per
law.
[8] Furnish copy of this order to the learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
JUDGE
Victoria
WP(C) No. 47 of 2025 Page 2 of 2
[ad_1]
Source link