State Of Manipur; & Anr vs Rolly Hongam; & Ors on 27 March, 2026

    0
    38
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Manipur High Court

    State Of Manipur; & Anr vs Rolly Hongam; & Ors on 27 March, 2026

    KABORAMBA Digitally
              KABORAMBAM
                        signed by
    
    M SANDEEP SANDEEP SINGH
              Date: 2026.03.30
    SINGH     10:20:47 +05'30'
    
                                                                                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 2024

    BEFORE
    HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
    HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
    (ORDER)

    SPONSORED

    (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

    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.

    Page 1 of 4
    [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

    Page 2 of 4
    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 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

    Page 3 of 4
    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
    
    
    
    
                                                                         Page 4 of 4
     

    [ad_1]

    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here