KEIHIYANG RONGMEI Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR
LAWS(MANIP)-2019-5-21
HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Decided on May 21,2019

Keihiyang Rongmei Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MANIPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR,J. - (1.) This appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.01.2019. The appellants, two in number, are aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition primarily holding that the cause of action for filing the writ petition is based on disputed questions of fact and the issue has to be decided only before the Civil Court and not by way of a writ petition.
(2.) The brief facts of the case as stated by the learned Single Judge is the claim between the three petitioners to a particular property of Kahulong village as against the claim of the third respondent in the writ petition, the third respondent in the appeal, who states that he is the half owner of the property in question based on an Exchange Deed, Exhibit-R/2 in the reply affidavit filed before the writ Court.
(3.) The cause for dispute arose after initiation of land acquisition process for widening the Tamenglong-Khongsang Road and in that, the parties were at loggerheads as to the compensation to be received by the real owner. In the circumstances, learned Single Judge recorded the facts of the case as follows:- "[2] By the instant writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to set-aside the registration of the "cancellation of gift deed"? registered vide registration No. 242 of 2001 dated 17-2-2001 of the Sub-Registrar (H.Q.), Imphal, Manipur. [3.1] Facts and circumstances as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner No.1 was the owner and possessor of the land known as "Joulang"? or "Doudong"? of Ramphanbutlong Hill situated within the village boundary of Kahulong Village. In the year 1987, the petitioner No.1 executed a registered gift deed being registration No. 5836 dated 17.10.1987 of the Sub-Registrar (HQ), Imphal in favour of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 gifting a portion of the said land, described in the schedule of the gift deed, measuring 2.5 kilometer (East to West) and 2 kilometer (North to South). After the said gift deed being executed, the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 have been residing inside the said portion of the land. [3.2] In the year 2013 when the land was being acquired for widening the Tamenglong- Khongsang Road, it was discovered that a so-called deed under the name and style "Cancellation of Gift Deed"? was found to have been registered vide registration No. 242 of 2001 dated 16.2.2001 in the office of the Sub-Registrar (HQ), Imphal cancelling the earlier gift deed which was purportedly executed by the petitioner No.1. The said cancellation gift deed was not executed by them and the same is forged and fabricated document. [3.3] By the notification dated 13.09.1962 issued by the Chief Secretary, Manipur Administration, the Sub-Registrar, Imphal was amalgamated with the 0ffice of the Registrar for the entire territory of Manipur and it was allowed to exercise and perform the duties of the registrar. In exercise of the power conferred upon it, the documents including gift deed for landed properties located inside Tamenglong District, were allowed to be executed and registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, respondent No. 2 herein and therefore, the gift deed was lawfully executed and registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, respondent No. 2. [3.4] In the year 1988, the Commissioner (Revenue), Government of Manipur, in exercise of his powers conferred by Section 3, 5 and 6 of the Registration Act, 1908 and in supersession of all previous orders, issued an order dated 18.02.1988 which was to take effect from 1.3.1988, by which the office of respondent No. 2 has no power and jurisdiction to register any document in respect of landed properties located inside Tamenglong District including the deed of cancellation. Therefore, the registration of cancellation gift deed as has been done in the year 2001 in the office of the respondent No. 2, is without jurisdiction and is accordingly null and void. **** **** **** **** **** ****;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.