Manipur High Court
Hem Sagar Uprety vs Union Of India & 3 Ors on 31 March, 2026
Digitally signed by
JOHN JOHN TELEN KOM
Sl. No. 24-29
TELEN KOM Date: 2026.04.01
16:54:03 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WA No.25 of 2025
With
MC(WA)No.56 of 2025
With
MC(WP(C))No.327 of 2025
With
MC(WP(C))No.590 of 2025
With
WP(C)No.348 of 2025
With
WP(C)No.630 of 2025
Hem Sagar Uprety
Appellant
Vs.
Union of India & 3 ors.
Respondents
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
(ORDER)
(Order of the Court was made by Mr. M. Sundar, CJ)
31.03.2026
[1] In the hearing today, Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior
advocate instructed by Mr. Abdul Baqee Khan and Mr. Murtaza Ahmed,
learned counsel on record for writ appellant is before this Court. To be
noted, writ appellant, Mr. Hem Sagar Uprety is present in Court along
with his counsel on record.
[2] On the side of respondents, Mr. W. Darakishwor, learned
Senior Panel Counsel for Central Government (Sr. PCCG) for
respondent Nos. 1,3 & 4 and Mr. W. Niranjit, learned State counsel for
Page 1 of 4
respondent No.2 (The Deputy Commissioner/District Collector,
Kangpokpi District, Manipur) are present in the physical Court.
[3] In sum and substance, the writ appellant contends that he
has been given Jamabandi (this Court is informed that this is a patta
under Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960). There are
two jamabandis and the same pertain to two parcels of land which we
are informed are contiguous, these ‘two parcels of land are comprised in
3(three) Dag numbers namely, ‘Dag No. 1269, 1270/1502 and
1278/1283′ all situate in 031 Kanglatombi Village, Sekmei Tehsil,
Lamsang Sub-Division Imphal West District’ (‘said lands’ for the sake of
convenience and clarity). According to photocopies of the jambandis
placed before this Court and submissions of learned counsel for writ
appellant made on instructions from writ appellant who is present in
Court, the land extent vide first two Dag numbers namely, Dag No. 1269,
1270/1502 admeasures 0.05917 hectare (0.1462 acres). In this regard,
there is a typographical error in the English translation which reads as
‘0.01462’ acre, for which learned counsel for appellant expresses regret.
As regards the 3rd Dag number viz., 1278/1283, the extent of land is
0.01012 hectare (0.025 acre). It is contended that writ appellant has put
up two separate super structures (residential houses in said lands in
1992 and his three daughters and one son are living there).
[4] The case of the appellant is that said lands are to be
acquired for proposed alignment of four lane ‘National Highways Project
Page 2 of 4
connecting Kanglatombi and Kangpokpi’ (‘said Project’ for the sake of
convenience and clarity).
[5] A photograph of the two residential houses (photograph
taken with GPS Map Camera) has been placed before this Court by
learned counsel for appellant and a scanned reproduction of the same is
as follows:
[6] As regards the respondents, learned State counsel
submits that ‘National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956)’ {‘said Act’ for the
sake of convenience and clarity} comes into play but both learned State
counsel are unable to decisively tell us about whether acquisition
proceedings have been initiated and if yes, what is the stage of
acquisition proceedings?. In this regard, it is deemed appropriate to
record that a sheet of paper produced by the appellant {Annexure A/5 of
WP(C) No.348 of 2025} talks about final award amount. This sheet of
paper is a tabulation and according to writ appellant serial Nos. 218 and
219 thereat which refers to lands comprised in Survey No. 2163 is a
Page 3 of 4
reference to said lands. There is no Dag number in this sheet andtherefore, we refrain from expressing any opinion on this submission at
this juncture.
[7] In the light of narrative thus far, we deem it appropriate to
direct learned State counsel to produce entire records pertaining to said
lands including record pertaining to acquisition or any other proceedings,
if any. In this regard, we also deem it appropriate to direct the Deputy
Commissioner, Imphal West District, Manipur and Deputy
Commissioner, Kangpokpi District, Manipur to be present in Court in the
next listing, obviously, with the records and assist the learned State
counsel. To be noted, while writ appellant has chosen to array Deputy
Commissioner, Kangpokpi District, Manipur as respondent No.2, learned
State counsel submits that the records are with Deputy Commissioner,
Imphal West District, Manipur. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to
direct both Deputy Commissioners to be present in Court. This Court is
constrained to requisition presence of officers as affidavit-in-opposition
of respondent No.2 is bereft of critical particulars and learned State
Counsel unable to give requisite details regarding acquisition (if there is
one). Let them remain present in Court (physical Court) in the next listing
which will be on 28.04.2026.
[8] List on 28.04.2026.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
John Kom
Page 4 of 4