ALL MANIPUR SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIALISTS ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R.S.Reisang, learned senior GA for the State respondents.

(2.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Association, a registered association and represented by its President, namely, Mr. A. Brajakumar Sharma. According to the petitioner, the petitioner Association owns a land under Dag No. 2601 situated at Jiribam having Patta No. 279 (old)/481 (new) measuring an area of 6.0705 hectares in revenue village No. 3 ­ Dibong (Jiribam) of Imphal East District, Manipur. It has been claimed that the petitioner Association had been possessing the said suit land continuously without any interruption or disturbance for more than 24 years. However, sometime in the early part of October, 2012, some un -authorised persons tried to construct an inter village road (IVR) inside the said land without the permission of the petitioner association. Thereafter, the President of the Association submitted an application to the ADC Jiribam, Imphal East District, Manipur and AS & SO, Jiribam, Imphal East District, Manipur on 20.11.2012 requesting not to allow any unauthorised construction as the land belongs to the petitioner Association. However, apprehending disturbances from unauthoriesed persons including the private respondents, the petitioner approached the Civil Court by instituting the Original Suit No. 77 of 2013 before the Civil Judge Sr. Division, Manipur East No. II for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the Private respondents. It has been stated that in the said suit, the private respondents had filed a written statement admitting that they had constructed the road in the land which belongs to the petitioner.

(3.) THE petitioner's plea in the writ petition is that since the land belongs to the petitioner Association, the respondent authorities have no right to issue any work order inviting for construction of any road inside a private land. Accordingly, the petitioner has challenged the work order dated 27.5.2013 issued in favour of the respondent No. 6 in the present writ petition.