LONGJAM THAMBALANGOU SINGH AND ORS. Vs. HUIDROM TOLLAMU SINGH AND ORS.
LAWS(GAU)-1968-5-5
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on May 17,1968

Longjam Thambalangou Singh And Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
Huidrom Tollamu Singh And Ors. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

HARBIR SINGH V. STATE [REFERRED TO]
YUMNAM SAJOU SINGH VS. CHANAMBAM THAMBALANGOU SINGH [REFERRED TO]
KHUNDRAKPAM THAMBALANGOU SINGH VS. LAISRAM BEDA SINGH [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

C. Jagannadhacharyulu, J. - (1.)THIS is a revision petition filed under Section 435, Cr.P.C. to set aside the order of the Sessions Judge, Manipur dated 1.12.1967 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 480/67 dismissing the same, filed to set aside the order of the S.D.M., I.W. dated 8.11.1967 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 43 of 1967 filed under Section 145, Cr.P.C.
(2.)THE brief facts of the case are thus,: The Tronglaobi sub -fishery of Leitangpat Fishery No. 128 was de -reserved in 1960. The Chief Commissioner, Manipur, ordered on 1.7.1960 that the said fishery should be settled in favour of a Farming Co -Operative Society, formed by the landless people of a contiguous village, without prejudice to the interest of the Government in the Grassmahal. On the assurance given by the Settlement Department, the petitioners formed a Farming Co -operative Society in 1965 -66. Even, prior to the year of de -reservation, the members of the Society including the petitioners reclaimed the lands and the petitioners were thus in physical possession and enjoyment of the lands for about 10 years.
Sometime in the month of October, 1966, the respondents who are the villagers of Thiyam Leisangkhong applied for settlement in the name of a proposed Co -operative Society as "Thiyam Leisangkhong Cooperative Society" (not yet registered). The Settlement Department granted some lands to individuals on 25.10.1966. The petitioners filed C. C. Revenue Appeal Case No. 2 of 1967 before the Chief Commissioner. After hearing the parties, the Chief Commissioner cancelled the settlement and remanded the case to the Settlement Officer for re -consideration and issued direction that the de -reserved area should not be granted in such a way that the order of settlement should flout the intention of the Government, so far as the purpose of de -reservation is concerned.

(3.)THE respondents filed Writ Petition No. 10 of 1967 in this Court to set aside the order of the Chief Commissioner and obtained stay of the operation of his order. The respondents filed an application before the S.D. M., I.W., (Cril. Misc. Case No. 40 of 1967) under Section 144(2), Cr.P.C. for an order against the petitioners. The Section D.M., I.W. passed an ex parte order on 5.10.1967 under Section 144 (2), Cr.P.C. The order was to remain in force upto 5.12.1967. On account of the said order, the petitioners were ousted from the possession of the disputed 30 paris of "Lou". Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioners filed a petition Cril. Misc. Case No. 4 of 1967 under Section 144 (4) and (5) Cr.P.C. before the District Magistrate on 13.10.1967. The latter passed a stay order on 17.10.1967. By virtue of the stay order the petitioners' party resumed possession of the disputed 30 paris of "lou". The stay order was operative till the final decision of Criminal Misc. Case No. 4 of 1967. The District Magistrate, however, erroneously added that the Mayang -Imphal Police could report to the S.D.M., I.W. under Section 144 (2), Cr.P.C. if there was need for prevention of any breach of the peace.
;


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