Civil Review Case No. 2 of 1965 (Ref. Civil Writ Appln. Case No. 9 of 1962). Case: Aribam Pishak Sharma and others Vs Aribam Tuleswar Sharma and others.

Case NumberCivil Review Case No. 2 of 1965 (Ref. Civil Writ Appln. Case No. 9 of 1962)
CounselFor Petitioners: N. Shyam Sunder Singh, Adv. and For Respondent No. 1: T. Bhubon Singh, Adv.
JudgesC. Jagannadhacharyulu , J.C.
IssueCivil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) - Order 47, Rule 1; General Clauses Act (10 of 1897) - Section 24
CitationAIR 1968 Manipur 74
Judgement DateDecember 07, 1967

Order:

  1. This is an application filed by Aribam Pishak Sarma, Irengbam Yaima Singh Aribam Ningol Ngambi Devi and the legal representatives of Pangamham Doya Singh under Ss. 151 and 114 read with order 47, rule 1. C.P.C. against Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma and 7 others to review the judgement of this Court dated 25-5-1965 in Writ Petition No 9 of 1962 allowing it and issuing a writ of mandamus quashing the orders of the second respondent Chief Commissioner, dated 11-8-1961 and 30-9-1961 and directing him and the other respondents 3 to 8 to discharge their statutory duties in evicting the petitioners herein from portions of road side land lying by the side of Imphal-Kangchup-Tamenglong road.

  2. The first respondent herein-Aribam Tuleshwar Sarma filed Writ Petition No 16 of 1961 against the petitioners herein for their eviction from portions of road side lying adjoining Imphal-Kangchup-Tamanglong road 32'. 4" x 23' 6", 19' x 7", 12'. 2" x 19' and 8' x 17' occupied by them respectively But, after the petitioners herein filed their written statements and documents, the first respondent withdrew Writ Petition No. 16 of 1961 on 13-7-1962. Subsequently he filed Writ Petition No. 9 of 1962 on 14-9-1962 for the same relief. His case is that he is the owner of northern portion if certain homestead land covered by joint patta No. 87/27/1. W.T. (Vide Ext. B/12) abutting the Imphal-Kangchup-Tamenglong road. The Government of Manipur declared the said road in its Notification No. PW/CMN/4/53 dated 26-5-1954 as a district road. (Vide Ext. B/13). It maintained the width of the road at 40 ft. and 60 ft. respectively on us approach to urban and industrial areas. It also declared the building and control lines in respect of class of district roads and directed that, as measured from the central line, they should be 50' and 80" respectively. Thus the area upto 80' from the central line on both sides was reserved for the road, The homestead land of the first respondent is within the Municipal area of Imphal. It lies within the urban and industrial area of Manipur. So, the width of the road in question has been maintained at 60' being 30' on either side from the central lint of the road.

  3. The first respondent also alleged that the Manipur Government declared the road as part of the State Highway as published in its Manipur Gazette Extraordinary 71-E-53 dated 28-8-1959. (Ext B/14). By a subsequent Gazette notification dated 4-4-1962 (Vide Ext. B/15) the Government declared the said road as a Highway under the Bombay Highways Act of 1955, which was extended to Manipur Union territory from 11-1-1960. In October, 1960 when the first respondent was constructing a shop on his homestead land, the petitioners encroached on the reserved road side land by constructing shops. The first respondent filed an application before the Settlement Officer, Manipur on 27-10-1960, requesting him to remove the encroachment made by the petitioners. But, he did not take any action even though he sent a reminder on 13-2-1961 Subsequently, the area was surveyed in 1960-61 Cases of encroachment of public road side land were taker up. The Settlement Officer passed an order on 5-1-1961 directing the eviction of the petitioners under Rule 18(2) of the Rules framed by the second respondent on 9-5-1959 (hereinafter called as the Rules of 1959) under Section 157 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation-Regulation 1 of 1886 (hereinafter called as the Regulation) as extended to the territory of Manipur. Vide Exts. B/1 to B/8. But the petitioners did not remove, the buildings from the encroached portions. So, the then Assistant Settlement Officer (E). Manipur, started eviction proceedings against the petitioners on 24-4-1961. The petitioners filed appeal before the second respondent. Chief Commissioner of Manipur against the orders of eviction in C.C. Rev Appeal Nos. 28, 30, 31 and 32 of 1961. He dismissed the appeal of late Pangambam Doya Singh for default on 1-8-1961 (Vide Ext. B/21). On 4-8-1961, he heard the appeals of the petitioners 1 to 3 and ordered that the land encroached by them should be settled on them. (Vide Exts. B/18 to B/20). The second respondent restored the appeal of late Pangambam Doya Singh to file and directed that the land occupied by him also should be settled on him. (Vide Ext, B/22). But, the encroached portions are all situate within 25 ft. from the centre of the road and are thus within the area of the road and the reserved road side land. The encroached portions are also within 35 ft. from the foot of the public road. So the first respondent prayed that the orders of the second respondent dated 11-8-1961 and 30-9-1961 passed in C.C. Revenue Appeal Nos. 28, 30, 32 and 31 of 1961 as per Exts. B/18 to B/20 and B/22 are void and illegal and that the petitioners should of evicted from the sides occupied by them.

  4. The petitioners traversed the allegations of the first respondent. The respondents 2 to 8 filed separate counter supporting the allegations of the petitioners herein.

  5. My learned predecessor heard arguments and allowed the petition with costs on 25-5-1965.

  6. The petitioners herein, who were the respondents 1 to 4 in Writ Petition No. 9 of 1962, filed the present petition for review of the judgement of this Court on various grounds Under Order 47 Rule 1, C.P.C. a judgement may be reviewed firstly, if the person who applies for review, shows that he discovered new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made secondly when there is some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and thirdly when there is any other sufficient reason The petitioners state that my learned predecessor committed a number of errors and mistakes apparent on the face of the record relying on the affidavit of the first respondent and that, therefore, the judgement has to be reviewed and set aside. My learned predecessor held that the orders of the second respondent granting settlement of the road margin to the petitioners were hit by Rule 20 of the Rules of 1959, under which no person is entitled to obtain a lease in respect of land within 35 ft from the foot of the slope of a public road. The contention of the petitioners' counsel is that the said rule does not apply to the petitioners' cases but that Rule 69 of the Rules framed under the Regulation and contained in Part II of the Assam Land Revenue Manual Vol. I. 6th edition, under which a periodic lease with the previous sanction of the Chief Commissioner for town land situate within 25 ft. or such other distance as may be laid down by the special order of the Government from the central line of any road maintained by the Public-Works Department or the Local Board, applies and that therefore, the order of my learned predecessor is patently incorrect. I had occasion to deal with the applicability of the Regulation and the Rules framed thereunder to Manipur territory in another case, viz., Thiyam Khomdon Singh v. Chief Commissioner of Manipur, Civil Writ Application Case No. 11 of 1964, disposed of by me on 27-4-1967 (Manipur). Vide paragraphs 13 and 14 of that judgement. As can be seen from page i of the introduction to the Assam Land Revenue Manual - Vol. I, 6th edition of 1940, the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1866, was enacted by the Governor-General in Council in accordance with the provisions of Section 1 of the Government of India Act 1870. As can be seen from page iv the rules were framed from time to time by various notifications by the Assam Government and first issued in a consolidated form under Section 158 of the Regulation in 1894 Those rules were printed in Part II of the Manual. It is seen from page ix that it was at first considered un-necessary to frame separate rules for the assessment of town lands. The assessment continued to be made under the executive orders of the Chief Commissioner until 1897, when the rules were first made. They were revised and included as Section IV of the Settlement Rules in chapter I, Part II of the Manual. These rules apply to all the lands included in any municipality or any notified area under the Assam Municipal Act...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT