Manipur High Court
The State Of Manipur Represented By The … vs Mr. Rolly Hongam Aged About 40 Years on 29 July, 2026
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
2026:MNHC:145-DB
Reportable
14 & 15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WA No.52 of 2024
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Secretary/
Commissioner (Revenue), Government of Manipur, Old
Secretariat, South Block, Imphal, Manipur-795001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Chandel, Government of
Manipur
...Appellants
-Versus-
1. Mr. Rolly Hongam aged about 40 years, S/o Late H. Angting
Monsang of Chandel Village, P.O. & P.S. Chandel-795127.
` ....Respondent
2. The Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry
of Telecommunication (Bharat Sancha Nigam Ltd.),
Government of India.
3. The Chief General Manager, Task Force, Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Ltd., North East Region, Gauhati-781001.
….Proforma Respondents
With
MC(WA)No.99 of 2024
1 The State of Manipur represented by the
Secretary/Commissioner (Revenue), Government of
Manipur, Old Secretariat, South Block, Imphal, Manipur-
795001.
2 The Deputy Commissioner, Chandel, Government of
Manipur
…Applicants
-Versus-
1 Mr. Rolly Hongam aged about 40 years, S/o Late H. Angting
Monsang of Chandel Village, P.O. & P.S. Chandel-795127
` …Respondents
Page 1 of 15
2026:MNHC:145-DB
2 The Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry
of Telecommunication (Bharat Sancha Nigam Ltd.),
Government of India.
3 The Chief General Manager, Task Force, Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Ltd., North East Region, Gauhati-781001.
....Proforma Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the appellant Mr. S. Niranjan, GA
For the respondents Mr. N. Biren, learned counsel for
R1; Mr. S. Kaminikumar, learned
counsel for R2 and Mr. BR
Sharma, learned counsel for R3
Date of Judgement & Order 29.07.2026
JUDGEMENT & ORDER
(Oral)
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon’ble Chief Justice)
[1] The following abbreviations/short forms have been used in this
order (for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity):
Sl. Abbreviation/ Full Form/Expansion
No. Short Form/other
short references
1. WA Writ appeal
2 R1 First respondent
3. R2 Second respondent
4. R3 Third respondent
5. BSNL Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
(Government of India Enterprise)
6. said Land Land ad measuring 40,000 Square ft. on
thereabouts in Japhou Village, Chandel
District, Manipur
7 MLR & LR Act Manipur Land Revenue and Land
Reforms Act, 1960 (33 of 1960)
Page 2 of 15
2026:MNHC:145-DB
8 MLR Rules The Manipur Land Revenue and Land
Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1962.
9 Central Land The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of
Acquisition Act 1894)
10 MC Miscellaneous Case
11 WP Writ petition
[2] This order will now dispose of captioned WA and captioned MC
thereat.
[3] Instant order has to be read in conjunction with and in
continuation of earlier proceedings/orders made in the listing on 27.03.2026
and reproduction of the same is as follows:
‘Sl. Nos. 13 & 14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
W.A. No. 52 of 2024
State of Manipur; & Anr.
Appellants
Vs.
Rolly Hongam; & Ors.
Respondents
With
MC (W.A.) No. 99 of 2024BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
(ORDER)
(Order of the Court was made by Mr. M. Sundar, CJ)27.03.2026
[1] Captioned ‘Writ Appeal’ (‘WA’ for the sake of brevity) has been filed
in this Court on 15.11.2024 assailing ‘an order dated 11.01.2024 made in
W.P. (C) No. 403 of 2023 by a Hon’ble Single Bench’ (hereinafter ‘impugned
order’ for the sake of brevity and convenience).
[2] The ‘two appellants’ shall be collectively referred to as ‘State’
(wherever necessary, specific reference by designation of the Officer will also
be made).
[3] ‘1st respondent’ (‘R-1’ for the sake of brevity) shall be referred to as
‘writ petitioner’ based on his rank before the Hon’ble Single Bench. ‘2 nd
Page 3 of 15
2026:MNHC:145-DB
respondent’ (‘R-2’ for the sake of brevity) shall be referred to as ‘Central
Government’ for the sake of convenience, ‘3rd respondent’ (‘R-3’ for the sake
of brevity) shall be referred to as ‘BSNL’ also for the sake of brevity and
convenience.
[4] In the hearing today, Mr. S Niranjan, learned State counsel for
appellants (State), Mr. N. Biren Singh, learned counsel for writ petitioner, Mr.
S. Kaminikumar, learned Central Government Counsel (CGC) for Central
Government and Mr. BR Sharma, learned Central Government Counsel
(CGC) for Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) are before this Court.
[5] Nucleus of the captioned matter is ‘land admeasuring 40,000sq. feet
or thereabouts (400 ft x100 ft) in Japhow Village now in Chandel District,
Manipur’ (‘said land’ for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity).
[6] Case of writ petitioner is that said land belonged to his late father (late
H. Anting Monsang); that on 22.05.1984, said land was donated for the
purpose of establishment of Ultra High Frequency Telecommunication Link at
Chandel (District Headquarters) on condition that his son (writ petitioner) will
be given employment in a Grade-III or Grade-IV post in the Post and
Telegraph Department or any other suitable Department; that thereafter State
purportedly in exercise of powers under Section 14(2) of ‘the Manipur Land
Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (33 of 1960)’ (hereinafter ‘MLR Act‘ for
the sake of brevity) and Rule 18 of ‘the Manipur Land Revenue and Land
Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1962’ (‘MLR Rules’ for the sake of brevity)
allotted said land to the Post and Telegraph Department for setting up Ultra
High Frequency Telecommunication Link at Chandel under Micro Wave
Project; that thereafter alleging that the condition that his son should be given
employment has been breached, writ petitioner’s father filed a writ petition in
W.P. (C) No. 141 of 2003 in the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench. It appears
that the writ petition was filed with a prayer to direct State to initiate land
acquisition proceedings qua said land, this writ petition was disposed of by
Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench in and by order dated 06.01.2011
directing the State to acquire said land as per ‘Land Acquisition Act, 1894‘
(hereinafter ‘Central Land Acquisition Act’ for the sake of convenience) and
make it clear that award should be prepared, it should be borne by Central
Government and BSNL and four months time was granted to complete this
exercise; thereafter State gave legal quietus to this 06.01.2011 order; not only
did State give legal quietus, it also acted as per the order and issued a
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Central Land Acquisition Act being
Notification dated 23.09.2011; in this Section 4(1) Notification, State has
sought to acquire 2.62 acres of land in all (to be noted, this is at variance with
40,000 sq. feet extent) but State has clearly shown writ petitioner’s father (H.
Angting Monsang, s/o (L) H. Kopham Monsang) as owner of land sought to
be acquired and has also described him as ‘Chief of Japhou Village’; to be
noted, in this Notification, the village is spelt as ‘Japhou’; thereafter the State
(Deputy Collector) made an order dated 31.07.2012 under Section 9 of
Central Land Acquisition Act; be that as it may, this Court is informed that this
Page 4 of 15
2026:MNHC:145-DB
land acquisition proceedings lapsed; thereafter, writ petitioner’s father died on
09.03.2017.
[7] In these circumstances, writ petitioner filed afore-referred W.P. (C)
No. 403 of 2023 in this Court inter alia with a prayer seeking implementation
of afore-referred 06.01.2011 order made in W.P. (C) No. 141 of 2003 and for
a further direction to State to pay adequate compensation for land that has
already been taken over. After full contest, a Hon’ble Single Bench disposed
of the writ petition inter alia directing implementation of 06.01.2011 order
within six months. Aggrieved by this order, State is on appeal (intra court
appeal) vide captioned WA.
[8] The Following points require clarification/inputs;
(i) MLR Act is clearly a conditional legislation as is
evident from sub-section (3) of Section 1. There appear to
be multiple Notifications after the enactment. Whether MLR
Act has been extended to village in which said land is
situate?
(ii) By a notification dated 25.01.1962, several villages
were notified as ‘Hill areas’ vide Section 2 (j) of MLR Act.
Serial No. 93 talks about Japhow village in Tengnoupal Sub
Division but the papers before us refer to the village as
Japhou village. Whether Japhow village and Japhou Village
are the same?
(iii) Either way, has MLR Act has been extended/made
applicable to the village in which said land is situated?
[9] Faced with the above situation, learned State counsel sought time to
get adequate instructions and revert to this Court.
[10] Afore-referred request is acceded to.
[11] List as 'PART HEARD' on 17.04.2026.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Sandeep'
[4] In instant order, the abbreviations/short forms set out in the
tabulation supra as well as abbreviations/short forms used in the earlier
proceedings/order dated 27.03.2026 will be used for the sake of brevity,
convenience and clarity.
[5] The afore-referred proceedings/order dated 27.03.2026
captures the crux and gravamen of the lis and it also sets out the trajectory
Page 5 of 15
2026:MNHC:145-DB
the matter has taken thus far. Suffice to write that the afore-referred
proceedings/order dated 27.03.2026 shall now be read as an integral part and
parcel of instant order.
[6] The genesis, as alluded to supra, is a judicial order dated
06.01.2011 made in WP(C)No.141 of 2003 by a Hon’ble Single Judge of
Gauhati High Court. In and vide this order, Hon’ble Single Judge had inter-alia
directed State to acquire said land by resorting to Central Land Acquisition Act
so that an award is drawn up and further directed that the award amount is to
be paid by BSNL and a 4(four) months time frame was also fixed for this
exercise. Acting on this order, State initiated proceedings under Central Land
Acquisition Act by issuing a notification (inter-alia including said land) under
Section 4(1) in and vide notification dated 23.09.2011 bearing reference
No.4/32/LA/2011-Com(Rev). A scanned reproduction of this notification as
placed before this Court is as follows:
Page 6 of 15
2026:MNHC:145-DB
Thereafter, the jurisdictional D.C. (Deputy Commissioner) made an order
under Section 9 of Central Land Acquisition Act dated 31.07.2012 bearing
reference No. DC(CDL)/3/193/84/171 inter-alia calling for objections as
regards acquisition of said land for establishment of what has been described
as ‘Micro Wave Centre’.
Page 7 of 15
2026:MNHC:145-DB[7] Writ petitioner’s father is one Mr. H. Angting Monsang, he is no
more and his date of demise is 09.03.2017 (prior to filing of WP(C)No. 141 of
2003).
[8] Reverting to the land acquisition proceedings under Central Land
Acquisition Act, State did not proceed further (after issuing notification under
Section 4(1) and order of D.C. under Section 9) and this necessitated filing of
another writ petition by the writ petitioner being WP(C)No.403 of 2023. This
writ petition shall be referred to as ‘II WP’ in instant order for the sake of
brevity, convenience and clarity. In this II WP, the writ petitioner sought
implementation of directions given vide afore-referred 06.01.2011 order made
in WP(C)No.141 of 2003 by Hon’ble Single Bench of Hon’ble Gauhati High
Court. This II WP was allowed and prayer was acceded to by Hon’ble Single
Bench of this Court in and vide an order dated 11.01.2024 and this 11.01.2024
order made by Hon’ble Single Bench is the impugned order in the captioned
intra-court appeal i.e., captioned WA (as already alluded supra).
[9] Notwithstanding myriad grounds raised in the memorandum of
grounds of appeal, State counsel predicated his campaign against the
impugned order on 2(two) points and they are as follows:
(i) said land was donated by one W. Lartin, the then Chief of
Japhou Village and this has not been brought to the notice of the
Gauhati High Court before filing of I WP. To be noted, afore-
referred WP(C)No.141 of 2003 in the Gauhati High Court, from
hereon and henceforth is being referred to as ‘I WP’ for the sake
of convenience and clarity. In this regard, State has placed
Page 8 of 15
2026:MNHC:145-DB
before this Court an unregistered/unstamped writing plain paper
(dated 22.05.1984) and a scanned reproduction of the clean
copy of the same is as follows:
(ii) The second point on which learned State counsel predicated
his campaign against the impugned order is that State was not
given an opportunity for filing a counter and effectively opposing
and resisting the I WP.
[10] As regards BSNL, Mr. BR Sharma, learned Central Government
Standing Counsel very fairly submitted that BSNL remains neutral and it has
not assailed either the impugned order made in II WP or the earlier order dated
06.01.2011 made in the I WP. To be noted, this has been recorded in
paragraph 6 of the impugned order, which means that BSNL did not oppose
or resist II WP before Hon’ble Single Bench also.
Page 9 of 15
2026:MNHC:145-DB
[11] On the contrary, BSNL has addressed a letter dated 24.03.2023
bearing reference No.TF/NE/Legal/Cont.Notice/01-2020/31 to the writ
petitioner making it clear that they are yet to receive communication regarding
land acquisition and a scanned reproduction of this letter is as follows:
The afore-referred letter seen in the context of the neutral stated
position of BSNL makes it clear that they are not opposing the land acquisition
proceedings and the obvious sequitur is they would pay the compensation as
determined by State under Section 11 of the Central Land Acquisition Act.
[12] Before setting out our discussions and also writing our
dispositive reasoning qua the afore-referred two points raised by the State
counsel, it is necessary to advert to 2(two) aspects of the matter. One aspect
Page 10 of 15
2026:MNHC:145-DBis that vide an order dated 30.10.1984 bearing reference No.21/56/84-R,
Government of Manipur has allotted said land to BSNL by resorting to section
14(2) of the MLR & LR Act, and Rule 18 of MLR Rules. The second aspect of
the matter is 3(three) queries set out in paragraph 8 of afore-referred earlier
proceedings dated 27.03.2026. As regards the first query, MLR & LR Act is
undoubtedly a conditional legislation and vide 2(two) notifications made by
State Government, one dated 31.05.1961 bearing reference No. 140/12/60-M
(VI) and another dated 31.07.1976 bearing reference No. 7/1/71-R-Vol II,
various provisions of MLR Act have come into force. A scanned reproduction
of these two notifications are as follows:
Page 11 of 15
2026:MNHC:145-DB
It may not be necessary to dilate more on this aspect of the
matter as sections 1 and 2 of MLR Act which we are concerned with have
kicked in. As regards the second query, learned State counsel very fairly
submitted that a village spelt as ‘Japhow’ in Tengnoupal sub-division is the
same village in which said land situate and it is ‘Japhou’ village. This means
that Japhou Village has been notified as a Hill area and it qualifies as a Hill
area within the meaning of section 2(j) of the MLR & LR Act. This also means
that vide sub-section (2) of section 1, MLR Act does not extend to Japhou
Village but as further discussions on this or dilating more on this would amount
to travelling beyond legal perimeter of the captioned intra-court appeal, we
refrain from doing so and we stop with recording this obtaining position. This
by itself answers the third query also.
Page 12 of 15
2026:MNHC:145-DB[13] Reverting to 2(two) points on which learned State counsel
predicated his campaign against the impugned order, the afore-referred
22.05.1984 writing in an unregistered/unstamped piece of paper besides not
being a transfer of property by way of gift is of no significance and it pales into
insignificance owing to the notification under section 4(1) of Central Land
Acquisition Act, as the notification clearly refers to the writ petitioner’s father
as the owner of said land. It also refers to the writ petitioner’s father as chief
of Japhou village. To be noted, this notification under Section 4(1) of Central
Land Acquisition Act has already been scanned and reproduced elsewhere
supra in instant order and there is also allusion about the same elsewhere
supra in this order. Therefore, this section 4(1) notification besides dousing
the first point urged by the learned State counsel also makes it clear that State
has accepted the 06.01.2011 judicial order made by Hon’ble Gauhati High
Court in I WP as it acted on the same and commenced land acquisition
proceedings under Central Land Acquisition Act. This is another factor which
goes against the State as regards the first point.
[14] This takes this Court to the second point urged by learned State
counsel. The second point is that State was not given opportunity to file
counter affidavit and oppose the WP. Be that as it may, in this intra-court
appeal, State has been heard amply, adequately and State has also filed an
affidavit-in-opposition being affidavit-in-opposition dated 06.11.2025 along
with annexures. As regards counter affidavit and opportunity to State, the I
WP is of the year 2003 and it was disposed of 8(eight) years later in 2011
(06.01.2011) but State had not chosen to file counter affidavit. This has also
Page 13 of 15
2026:MNHC:145-DB
been recorded in paragraph 2 of the order of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in
paragraph 2 of order dated 06.01.2011 in I WP and the same reads as follows:
‘2. This Court is not giving any assistance either from the learned
G.A. appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 or from the learned
CGSC appearing for the respondent No.1. Till date, none of the
respondents filed affidavit-in-opposition.’[15] As regards the II WP, (to be noted, order dated 11.01.2024 made
in II WP is the impugned order in the captioned intra-court WA), State was
given opportunity and State filed an affidavit-in-opposition along with 8(eight
annexures). Learned State counsel very fairly submits that the affidavit-in-
opposition in II WP was filed on 29.08.2023.
[16] This Court also deems it appropriate to write as part of dispositive
reasoning that State which is on appeal is not in any manner aggrieved and
there is no expenditure for the State as all that the State has been called upon
to do is to resort land acquisition proceedings vide Central Land Acquisition
Act and it has been made clear that the award that is to be made (obviously
under Section 11 of Central Land Acquisition Act) has to be paid by BSNL. To
be noted, BSNL no doubt is a Government of India enterprise but it is ready
to pay out award amount. On equity too, this Court finds that BSNL has the
benefit of 40000 (forty thousand) square ft. of land which is nearly 1(one) acre,
as regards the writ petitioner is concerned and BSNL has admittedly set up
‘Micro Wave Centre’, built an office which are all operational/functional which
in effect means that said land is being put to full use by the requisitioning
authority viz., BSNL without resorting to land acquisition proceedings.
Page 14 of 15
2026:MNHC:145-DB
[17] Though obvious, land acquisition proceedings already started by
State, shall proceed on its own merits and in accordance with law and this
order will neither serve as an incentive for either party nor impede the
contentions of both parties. In other words, this order will neither impel nor
impede land acquisition proceedings.
[18] Ergo, sequitur of narration, discussion and dispositive reasoning
thus far is, captioned WA fails, the same is dismissed and impugned order of
Hon’ble Single Bench being order dated 11.01.2024 made in WP(C)No.403 of
2023 is confirmed. Consequently, captioned MC thereat perishes with WA and
the same is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
John Kom
P.S. I : Upload forthwith.
P.S. II : All concerned will stand bound by web copy uploaded in High Court website inter-
alia as the same is QR coded.
Digitally signed by
JOHN JOHN TELEN KOM
TELEN KOM Date: 2026.07.31
14:33:12 +05'30'
Page 15 of 15
