Manipur High Court
Shri Takhellambam Bhabananda Singh vs Shri Takhellambam Bolen Singh on 13 February, 2026
Page 1 of 6
LAIRENM Digitally
by
signed
AYUM LAIRENMAYUM
INDRAJEET
INDRAJE SINGH S. Item Nos. 1 & 2
Date: 2026.02.15 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
ET SINGH 13:32:02 +05'30'
AT IMPHAL
CRP(CRP.Art.227) No. 3 of 2026
With
MC(CRP(CRP.Art.227)) No. 9 of 2026
Shri Takhellambam Bhabananda Singh, aged about 41 years, S/o (L) T. Babu
Singh (Soraren), a resident of Awang Kongpal Laishram Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Porompat, District-Imphal East, Manipur.
Petitioner/s
Vrs.
Shri Takhellambam Bolen Singh, aged about 41 years, S/o (L). T. Shyambabu
Singh of Awang Kongpal Laishram Leikai, P.O. Imphal, P.S. - City, Imphal
West District, Manipur.
Respondent/s
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
13.02.2026
[1] An order dated 30.01.2026 made by Revenue Tribunal, Manipur in
Revenue Revision Case No. 23 of 2025 (Ref: Revenue Misc. Case No. 1 of
2024/SDO(P)/IE) has been called in question in the captioned Civil Revision
Petition (CRP) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
[2] The afore-referred ‘order dated 30.01.2026 made by the Revenue
Tribunal Manipur’ shall be referred to as ‘impugned order’ and ‘the Revenue
Tribunal Manipur’ which made the impugned order shall be referred to as ‘said
Revenue Tribunal’ (both for the sake of convenience and clarity).
[3] Impugned order was made by said Tribunal in exercise of powers of
revision under Section 95 of the ‘Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act,
1960 (Act No. 33 of 1960)’ (hereinafter ‘MLR & LR Act’ for the sake of brevity).
Page 2 of 6
[4] Owing to the scope of the legal drill at hand, as regards facts it will
suffice to write that it is a case of a dispute qua fixation of boundaries and the
dispute is between the revision petitioner and respondent pertaining to patta lands
situate in Village No. 16 – Laishram Leikai, Imphal East District.
[5] ‘Sub Divisional Officer, Porompat, Imphal East’ (hereinafter ‘said
SDO’) made an ‘order dated 27.12.2024 in Revenue Misc. Case No. 1 of
2024/SDO(P)/IE’ (‘said SDO order’ for the sake of convenience) as regards the
afore-referred fixation of boundaries dispute on the basis of a demarcation report
of ‘Sub-Deputy Collector, Heingang, Imphal East’ (‘said SDC’ for the sake of
convenience and clarity). This 27.12.2024 order made by said SDO (said SDO
order) was carried in revision to the said Revenue Tribunal by respondent in the
captioned CRP arraying the revision petitioner in captioned CRP as the sole
respondent. It is in this revenue revision case, the impugned order was made by
said Revenue Tribunal.
[6] Mr. M. Devananda, learned senior advocate instructed by Mr. Ng.
Jagatchandra, learned counsel on record for the revision petitioner who is before
this Court submitted that the impugned order is bad in law and it deserves to be
interfered with as it does not set out what were the jurisdictional errors and other
errors warranting revision under Section 95 of MLR & LR Act.
[7] This Court carefully perused the records in the light of the pointed
submissions of learned senior counsel. To be noted, learned senior counsel
predicated his campaign against the impugned order of the said Revenue Tribunal
on the aforesaid point notwithstanding myriad averments and grounds in the CRP
memorandum.
Page 3 of 6
[8] This Court wanted to know the provisions of law under which said
SDO made the afore-referred 27.12.2024 order (said SDO order).
[9] Learned senior counsel submitted that said SDO made the
27.12.2024 order(said SDO order) in exercise of powers under Section 55 of MLR
& LR Act which reads as follows:
’55. Description of boundary marks:
The boundary marks shall be of such description and shall be
constructed, laid out, maintained or repaired in such manner and shall
be of such dimensions and materials as may, subject to rules made
under this Act, be determined by the Deputy Commissioner or other
officer appointed for the purpose.’[10] A careful perusal of the afore-referred provision makes it clear that
powers under Section 55 can be exercised only by ‘Deputy Commissioner’ or any
other ‘officer appointed for this purpose’. To be noted, there is an adumbration of
revenue officers vide Section 4 of MLR & LR Act, ‘Deputy Commissioner’ is Section
4 (b) thereat and ‘Sub-Divisional Officers’ is 4(e) thereat. Therefore, it is clear that
Deputy Commissioners and Sub-Divisional Officers are different revenue officers.
In the case on hand, there is no material before this Court to demonstrate that an
officer other than Deputy Commissioner has been appointed for the purpose of
exercise of powers under Section 55. At this juncture, learned senior counsel drew
the attention of this Court to Section 166 which deals with Delegation of powers
qua State Government.
Section 166 of MLR & LR Act, 1960 reads as follows:
‘166. Delegation of powers:
The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
delegate to any officer or authority subordinate to him any of the powers
conferred on him or on any officer subordinate to him by this Act, other
Page 4 of 6than the power to make rules, to be exercised subject to such
restrictions and conditions as may be specified in the said notification.’[11] A careful perusal of Section 166 brings to light that it deals with
powers of State Government to delegate powers other than the power to make
rules. Counsel for revision petitioner is unable to produce any notification of State
Government to demonstrate that the Section 55 powers have been delegated to
SDOs. This by itself is curtains on the matter as said SDO order (27.12.2024)
suffers from vice of lack of jurisdiction.
[12] From the narrative and discussion thus far, it is clear that as regards
powers under Section 55, there is nothing before this Court to demonstrate that
an officer other than Deputy Commissioner has been appointed for the purpose of
exercise Section 55 powers much less is there any material to demonstrate
appointment of SDOs and likewise there is no material by way of notification of
State Government demonstrating delegation of Section 55 powers much less qua
SDOs.
[13] Reverting to the impugned order, the impugned order vide
paragraph 5D captioned ‘jurisdictional error’ has made it clear that the SDO lacks
jurisdiction (qua Section 55 of MLR & LR Act). To be noted, before the said
Tribunal, there was full contest and therefore it can be safely inferred that even
before said Tribunal, no notification of Government under Section 166 or
authorization of any officer other than Deputy Commissioner vide Section 55 was
placed by revision petitioner before said Tribunal.
[14] There are 3(three) other short points. One is the demarcation has
been done by said SDC and not by said SDO who made the 27.12.2024 order. The
demarcation by said SDC was done by pasting notice in the gate of respondent as
Page 5 of 6it is contended that respondent refused to receive notice but without going into
the factual question of whether respondent refused to receive notice, it will suffice
to write that this Court notices that the undisputed position is, notice was pasted
and respondent was not present at the time of demarcation.
[15] The second short point is, the order dated 27.12.2024 made by the
said SDO (said SDO says) says that the exercise was taken up in compliance with
a letter i.e., letter No. Revenue Revision Case No. 5 of 2022 dated 19.12.2023
from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East. There is nothing to
demonstrate that the Deputy Commissioner can either delegate or absent
appointment of an officer for exercising powers under Section 55 when there is
specific delegation powers under Section 166. As the jurisdictional error point
being one of the points as regards which impugned order has been made finds
favour with this Court, this Court deems it not necessary to go into other aspects
of the matter besides the three short points.
[16] The third short point is, in and vide impugned order, said Tribunal,
after setting aside the 27.12.2024 order made by said SDO has only directed the
competent ‘Revenue authority’ to do fresh demarcation strictly in accordance with
law and has directed that till final demarcation is made, status quo with regard to
possession shall be maintained by both parties. This only means that the
jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner should now do a de novo exercise being a
competent revenue authority within the meaning of Section 55 and parties should
maintain status quo till demarcation is concluded. In this view of the matter also
i.e., in view of this third short point also, this Court finds that there is no prejudice
as the demarcation exercise has to be now done by a competent authority and
Page 6 of 6this will obviously be after putting both sides on notice and giving opportunity to
both sides.
[17] The competent revenue authority i.e., jurisdictional Deputy
Commissioner shall do well to expedite the matter and complete the de novo
demarcation as per the impugned order of said Revenue Tribunal as expeditiously
as the official business of the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner would permit.
[18] In the light of the dispositive reasoning set out thus far, captioned
the CRP does not pass muster in the admission Board, the same fails and it is
dismissed. Consequently, captioned MC also perishes along with the CRP and the
captioned MC is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
Indrajeet
FR/NFR