Manipur High Court
Wahengbam Ranjit Singh @ Ajit Singh vs Wahengbam Premjit Singh on 17 January, 2025
Digitally signed by
KABORAMBA KABORAMBAM
M SANDEEP SANDEEP SINGH
Date: 2025.01.19
SINGH 08:40:27 +05'30'
Item No. 1 & 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 57 of 2024
Wahengbam Ranjit Singh @ Ajit Singh
Petitioner
Vs.
Wahengbam Premjit Singh
Respondent
With
MC [CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227)] No. 92 of 2024
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. D. KRISHNAKUMAR
ORDER
17.01.2025
Mr. Dayali Elangbam, learned counsel, appears for the petitioner;
and Mr. L. Seityandra, learned counsel, appears for the respondent.
The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the
impugned order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the Revenue Tribunal, Manipur, in
Revenue Revision Case No. 70 of 2024.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent
herein had submitted an application on 12.03.2024 before the Deputy
Commissioner, Imphal West and pursuant thereto, the SDO, Lamphel, registered
an Eviction Case No. 8 of 2024 and the impugned order dated 13.09.2024 was
passed therein without considering submission of the petitioner and thus, the
petitioner has filed Revenue Revision Case No. 70 of 2024 before the Revenue
Tribunal.
CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 57 of 2024 with
MC [CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227)] No. 92 of 2024 Page 1
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner
is the owner of the homestead land under Patta No. 144 (old), 118/586 (New)
covered by C.S. Dag No. 39 measuring to an extent of 0.0296 hectare.
According to the petitioner, no proper and final demarcation was
done between the petitioner and the respondent and no final peg was affixed nor
memorandum was issued to the petitioner as claimed by the respondent in
Demarcation Case No. 72/SDC/IW(C) dated 22.02.2018 and further the
respondent has also filed another Demarcation Case No. 4/SDC/IW(C)-II dated
08.01.2024 and notice dated 13.02.2024 was issued to the petitioner by the
SDC/IW(Central-II) which is still pending no memorandum was issued to the
petitioner till date.
According to the petitioner, the Tribunal has relied upon
memorandum dated 22.02.2018 in Demarcation Case No. 72/SDC/IW(C) which
has been signed by the both the parties. Without considering the genuineness of
the signature of the petitioner, the authority has rejected the claim of the
petitioner, hence, he has filed the present revision petition before this Court.
Learned counsel for the respondent strongly objected that the said
document has been forged, as signature of the parties are clearly found in the
said document and now the petitioner cannot have a leg to stand by disputing the
signature of the petitioner, which has been found in the Demarcation Case No.
72/SDC/IW(C). In such circumstance, he seeks for dismissal of the civil revision
petition.
CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 57 of 2024 with
MC [CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227)] No. 92 of 2024 Page 2
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the materials on record. Upon considering the submission made by the parties,
the issue involved in the present revision petition is that whether the document
which has been submitted by the respondent herein before the authority is
fraudulent or otherwise.
According to the petitioner, the said document which has been filed
before the authority is fraudulent document and without the knowledge of the
petitioner, the signature of the petitioner is found in the said document. The
Tribunal did not accept the said contention of the petitioner and the same is
rejected.
Learned counsel for the respondent also strongly objected that the
petitioner cannot have any right to make such a submission in the Eviction Case
No. 8 of 2024 and therefore, the said contention has been rightly rejected by the
authority. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the present
revision petition cannot be entertained as the petitioner’s remedy is only before
other forum and hence, he seeks for dismissal of the present revision petition.
Considering the submission made by the parties, this Court is of the
view that the petitioner has been raising disputed question of fact before the
concerned authority that the signature made in the document in Demarcation
Case No. 72/SDC/IW(C) is not genuine one and that being so, the petitioner’s
remedy is only to be sought before the civil Court for appropriate relief.
CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 57 of 2024 with
MC [CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227)] No. 92 of 2024 Page 3
In such circumstances, this civil revision petition cannot be
entertained and consequently, the same is accordingly dismissed with liberty to
the petitioner to approach the competent civil court for his relief, if any.
The miscellaneous application also stands dismissed.
The
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sandeep
CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 57 of 2024 with
MC [CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227)] No. 92 of 2024 Page 4
[ad_1]
Source link