T. Vaiphei, J.@mdashHeard Mr. Ng. Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and also Mr.Raghumani, learned State Counsel.
2. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.12.2011 passed by the learned single Judge in WP(C) No. 767 of 2011
declining to interfere with the order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner/Estate Officer, Churachandpur for evicting the
petitioner from the disputed land. It appears that the appellant, apprehending eviction from the land occupied by him, approached the learned Civil
Judge, (Jr.Divn) Churachandpur in O.S.No. 10/2011 for declaration of his title to the land in question and for issuing temporary injunction to
restrain the respondent No. 3 from carrying out the eviction process. The learned Civil Judge, by the order dated 23.08.2011 in Judl.Misc Case
No. 18 of 2011 issued temporary injunction restraining the respondents from carrying out eviction process. Aggrieved by this, respondent No. 3
preferred Misc Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2011 from the order dated 23.08.2011 before the learned District Judge, Manipur West, which by the
order dated 19.10.2011 stayed the injunction order of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Divn), passed in Judl Misc Case No. 18 of 2011. Taking cue
from this order, the respondent No. 3 thereafter issued the eviction notice requiring the appellant to dismantle his structures/building constructed on
the land occupied by him immediately, failing which, he would be liable to pay penalty to the extent of 6 times the annual revenue of the land. The
respondents accordingly resumed eviction/dismantling process of the appellant''s land. This prompted the appellant to file WP(C) No. 767 of 2011
before this Court challenging the eviction notice dated 21.10.2011 with a prayer for directing the respondents to restore possession of the disputed
land to him. The learned single Judge, as noted earlier, declined to interfere with the order of the respondent No. 3 and disposed of the writ
petition by directing the learned District Judge, Manipur West to dispose of the Misc Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2011 within two weeks. Liberty was
however granted therein to the appellant to agitate the points urged by him in the writ petition before the learned District Judge, Manipur West.
Aggrieved by this, this writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
3. Mr.Ng.Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned single Judge has completely overlooked the provisions of Section 15
of the MLR & LR Act (""the Act"" for short) read with Rule 18 of the MLR & LR, Rules, 1961 (""the Rules"" for short) in declining to interfere with
the impugned order issued by the respondent No. 3. According to the learned counsel, the respondent No. 3 was obliged under the law to
observe the concept of principles of natural justice as enshrined in Section 15 of the Act read with Rule 18 of the Rules, which render the
impugned order illegal. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that whether the appellant is the owner of the disputed land is
yet to be adjudicated upon by competent civil court of jurisdiction and the eviction order passed by the respondent No. 3 despite the pendency of
civil case will nullify any decree which may be obtained by him if the suit succeeds. In any view of the matter, argued the learned counsel, the
impugned order cannot be sustained in law, and is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, Mr.Raghumani, learned State counsel forcefully
defends the impugned order and submits that the order of the learned single Judge is innocuous in nature and has in no way caused prejudice to the
appellant and that the point urged by him before this court can be more effectively argued by him before the civil court, which is now seized with
the matter. Having not exhausted the alternative statutory remedy, he must be told off at the gate for ventilating his grievance before this court by
bypassing the alternative remedy provided for by law. He also submits that once the eviction process has been carried out and the appellant ousted
from his possession, the question of restoring possession of the land to the appellant does not arise. He, therefore submits, that the writ appeal is
bereft of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
4. We have given our anxious considerations to the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties. In our judgment, the
sole question which falls for consideration is whether the respondent No. 3 has complied with the safeguards laid down by Section 15 of the Act
read with Rule 18 of the Rules in launching the eviction proceedings and in evicting the appellant from the disputed land. u/s 15 of the Act, there is
no doubt that power is given to respondent No. 3 to evict unauthorized occupant/trespasser summarily. However, Rule 18 imposes obligation
upon respondent No. 3 to issue notice to the alleged trespasser requiring him to show cause, within the period specified in the notice as to why he
should not be evicted from the disputed land. A conjoint reading of the two provisions, amply makes it clear that prior notice is the sine qua non for
issuing eviction order and that it is implicit in the nature of things to give an adequate opportunity to the alleged trespasser to effectively present his
case or defend his case so that the right conferred therein is not rendered illusory. In other words, if sufficient time is not given, the spirit of Rule 18
will be violated. On going through the impugned order issued by respondent No. 3, we have no hesitation to hold that the provisions of Section 15
read with Rule 18 of the Rules have been violated by the respondent No. 3 while issuing the eviction notice and carrying out eviction order. This is
illegal and cannot be sustained in law. We are fortified in our view by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Samir Ranjan Barman and
Another Vs. District Magistrate and Collector and Others, in which it has been held that the power u/s 15 of the Act is summary in nature, but the
exercise thereof has to comply with the requirement of Rule 18. The next question which falls for consideration is whether the appellant, who is
now admittedly ousted from possession, can be allowed to reoccupy the disputed land. This legal point has also been settled by the same judgment
in para 65 and 66 as under:
65. In the instant case nothing has been stated regarding the buildings in the impugned eviction order. On the other hand, it is found that possession
has been taken over with Police help in an electric speed without giving any opportunity to petitioner No. 1 to show cause that he was not liable to
be evicted. There is not even semblance of an order passed under any provision of law regarding taking over vacant possession of the buildings
from the petitioners.
We have already found that the eviction proceedings and the orders therein are illegal and without jurisdiction. That being the position, if the
respondents are not directed to restore possession of the land and buildings in question to the petitioners, it would be on our part, an unjust and
unreasonable refusal to exercise jurisdiction and discretion vested in the High Court by the Article 226 of the Constitution.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and settled positions of law as discussed hereinabove, and for the ends of justice an the dignity
of the individual in a welfare State like ours where Rule of Law reigns supreme, there is no other alternative but to issue a direction for restoration
of possession of the land in question and the buildings and structures thereon.
Hence we do not find any substance in the last submission of the learned counsel for the Respondents that even if the eviction proceedings and the
impugned orders therein are found to illegal and without jurisdiction, there cannot be any order of restitution.
66. In the circumstances the impugned eviction proceedings in Eviction Case No. 33/75 and the impugned orders of eviction passed therein
including the orders dated 6.10.75, 7.11.75 and 10.11.75 are quashed. We further direct that the Respondents shall restore possession of the land
and buildings in question to the petitioners within two weeks from today.
In the result this petition is allowed and the Rule is made absolute. The Respondents shall pay costs of this petition to the petitioners, which we
assess at Rs.200/-
5. Resultantly, this writ appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 08.12.2011 passed by the learned single Judge in WP(C) No.
767 and order dated 21.10.2011, in respect of the appellant, issued by the respondent No. 3 are hereby set aside. The respondent No. 3 is
directed to restore possession of the disputed land to the appellant within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Copy of this order be furnished to the learned State counsel in the course of the day.
