Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Manipur Single Bench of Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma has modified interim orders previously issued in two writ petitions concerning the occupation of government land. The Court allowed the State's proposal for the development of a 30 ft. width road along the eastern bank of the Imphal River from Sanjenthong to Minuthong as part of the Imphal Smart City Project, subject to specific conditions. These conditions include intimating affected parties about the extent of land required, evaluating standing properties for compensation, providing a 15-day notice for demolition and vacating the affected portion, and taking special care for properties belonging to internally displaced persons.

The Court directed that the petitioners shall not be evicted from the remaining portion of the land under their occupation without the leave of the Court. It was also clarified that the pendency of the writ petitions and the modification of interim orders would not bar the State authority from considering pending applications for allotment of land. The Court left other contentions of both parties open to be agitated at an appropriate stage and listed the main cases for a future date.

Also Read: Nine Years In Jail Without Proof Beyond Doubt | Supreme Court Slams Conviction Based On 'Misreading Of Evidence' And 'Ignored Striking Features' | Acquits All Eleven Accused In Triple Murder

In WP(C) No. 673 of 2020, eighteen petitioners challenged an impugned notification dated 07.12.2020 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Porompat, Imphal East, in Eviction Case No. 16 of 2020/SDO/P/IE under the Manipur Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1978. The notification alleged that the petitioners and 20 other households were illegal encroachers occupying the eastern bank of the Imphal River from Sanjenthong to Minuthong and directed them to vacate by 16.12.2020.

The petitioners contended they had occupied the land for over 40 years and were entitled to allotment based on a State Cabinet decision of 24.10.1992. They stated they had submitted a representation dated 11.12.2020 to the local MLA-cum-Minister. They claimed their homestead lands were under Village No. 26(A) Nongpok Ingkhol, Imphal West, for over 40 years, with some names recorded in Jamabandi pattas and Dag Chitha, and land revenue paid. They provided land revenue records, electoral roll entries from 15-Wangkhei Assembly Constituency, and land revenue receipts as evidence of possession. They argued the eviction notice was issued without prior notice, causing hardship, and that their structures did not obstruct a 33 ft. inter-village road but protected the river bank. They asserted the notice was liable to be quashed for violating principles of natural justice and Section 3 of the 1978 Act, as no due enquiry was conducted. They cited an order dated 11.06.2001 in WP(C) No. 924 of 2001, stating an SDM was not the competent authority for eviction notices under the Act, and mentioned pending allotment applications by some petitioners since 28.03.2012.

The State respondents, in their counter affidavit dated 17.03.2021, denied the allegations, claiming the pattas and Dag Chitha were false and fabricated, with no records of encroachers in Dag No. 5803 and 5804. They asserted signatures were forged and no such documents were issued between 2017-2020. They argued the 1992 Cabinet decision was specific and not a general rule. They contended that Aadhaar, electricity, or voter cards did not prove permanent residency. The SDO, Porompat, initiated eviction after due verification and instructions. They stated proper notice was served, as evidenced by the petitioners' representation. The eviction was for the Smart City Project. Dag No. 5803 and 5804 were recorded as river bank (road) and road site in 1960. They argued that claims of 40-year possession should be addressed in a Civil Court. They also stated the order in WP(C) No. 924 of 2001 was inapplicable as the SDO, Porompat, followed Section 3 of the 1978 Act. The petitioners, in a rejoinder dated 20.06.2024, denied the documents were fake, reiterated their 40-year possession, and argued the eviction was discriminatory and hit by principles of adverse possession. They suggested land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, if required for the Smart City Project.

In WP(C) No. 127 of 2025, twenty-one petitioners challenged an order dated 10.02.2025 by the SDO, Porompat, Imphal West, under Section 3 of the 1978 Act in Eviction Case No. 2 of 2025/SDO(P)/IE, directing 22 persons (including the 21 petitioners) to vacate and remove structures by 5:00 pm of 16.02.2025. The petitioners claimed the land on the eastern bank of Imphal River from Sanjenthong to Minuthong was State Khas land, inhabited by various communities for 40 years. The areas included Mama Ingkhol Galapati, K.R. Lane, New Lambulane, Dimdailong, Namthanpung, Mission Lane, and Sanjenthong Meitei Leikai. They stated their names were in Dag Chithas as occupiers of State land, some as owners, and they had applied for allotment. They referred to a letter dated 03.07.2015 from the Directorate of Settlement of Land Records (DSLR) to the Secretary (Revenue), forwarding 19 allotment applications, indicating their possession, Dag No., area, classification, and Khas land status, with a no-objection certificate from the local councillor. They argued the 10.02.2025 order was ex-parte, without notice, and the affected persons were not impleaded. They also cited ongoing Class 10 and 12 examinations.

The Court noted that on 16.12.2020, in WP(C) No. 673 of 2020, it had issued notice and an interim order restraining eviction, which was extended. In WP(C) No. 127 of 2025, on 16.02.2025, the Ld. A.G. undertook that petitioners would not be evicted, and this was later converted to a status quo order. On 13.02.2025, in WP(C) No. 673 of 2020, the Ld. A.G. requested modification of the interim order for road expansion of 5 to 10 ft. On 20.02.2025, the Ld. A.G. submitted a proposal with a satellite map showing land required (5 to 15 feet) for road expansion. On 21.02.2025, the Court directed State respondents to file a satellite map showing the area required for a 30 ft. road. The State filed a preliminary affidavit with a list of 39 encroachers (Annexure-R/3) in village No. 26(A) of Nongpok Ingkhol, including petitioners from both cases, and a satellite map (Annexure-R/4) showing land required (5 to 15 ft.) for the 30 ft. road.

The State cited a letter dated 29.06.2024 from the Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs extending the Smart Cities Mission to 31.03.2025. They argued the petitions were not maintainable, referencing Section 20A(1) and Section 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, prohibiting injunctions against infrastructure projects. They cited NG Project Limited v. Vinod Kumar Jain & Ors. (2022) 6 SCC 127, advising against staying infrastructure projects. They also mentioned Section 6 of the 1978 Act regarding appeal to the Revenue Commissioner, a gazette notification dated 28.03.2023 including State land in the State Land Bank and imposing a moratorium on allotment, and Section 12(3) of the Manipur Flood Plain Zoning Act, 1978, restricting activities in flood plain areas.

The petitioners in WP(C) No. 673 of 2020, in a reply affidavit, stated the 07.12.2020 eviction order did not mention the Smart City Project and argued 40-year possession cannot be termed illegal encroachment. They contended the Smart City Project involved Nambul and Imphal rivers rejuvenation, Kangla Fort development, etc., and the mission did not focus on forceful eviction. They argued a 30 ft. width road was already available, making additional acquisition unnecessary. They pointed to discrepancies in the encroachers' list and noted one petitioner was an internally displaced person. The State respondents also filed an affidavit dated 11.03.2025 to the reply affidavit in WP(C) No. 127 of 2025.

The Court recorded the submissions of Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned A.G., who argued that the petitioners were encroachers on government land and liable to be evicted. He stated the eviction orders/notices were issued per the 1978 Act, and the petitioners' revenue records were fake and fabricated. He contended that electricity connections, Aadhaar cards, and voter cards did not grant inherent rights to remain on government land. Regarding the interim order, the Ld. A.G. referred to Section 20A and Section 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the judgment in NG Projects Ltd. He cited Jagpal Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (2011) 11 SCC 396, holding that encroachers have no legal right to regularization, and Milk Producers Association, Orissa & Ors. v. State of Orissa & Ors. (2006) 3 SCC 229, on evicting illegal encroachments without rehabilitation.

He also referred to Joginder v. State of Haryana (2021) 3 SCC 300, and stated that In Re: Direction in the matter of demolition of Structure (2024) SCC Online SC 3291 was not applicable. He cited State of Orissa v. Rajakishore Das (1996) 4 SCC 221 and M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu & Ors. (1999) 6 SCC 464 regarding illegal constructions. He argued the claim of 40-year possession was a mixed question of fact and law for a civil court, citing Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India (2004) 10 SCC 779.

He asserted that entries in Jamabandi are not proof of title, citing Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand & Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 349. He referred to para 54 of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of UP & Ors. (2024) 6 SCC 267, stating extension of interim orders should be by reasoned order, and argued Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn. (1985) 3 SCC 545 was not applicable. He also mentioned Section 12(3) of the Manipur Flood Plain Zoning Act, 1978.

Mrs. G. Pushpa, counsel for petitioners in WP(C) No. 673 of 2020, objected to vacating/modifying the interim order, citing paras 45 and 46 of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad (Supra), arguing that an interim order granted after hearing both parties can only be vacated on application, which was not formally filed. She stated petitioners were not heard on the satellite map and the extent of land affected. She argued NG Project Ltd. (Supra) was inapplicable. She refuted claims that revenue records were fabricated, citing Sections 74, 75, 76 & 77 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding admissibility of public documents.

She argued the 1978 Act was not applicable, or if it was, Section 3(1) requiring enquiry was violated. She referred to Olga Tellis (supra) regarding the right to shelter and livelihood. She noted one petitioner was an internally displaced person. She submitted the Smart City Project did not stipulate forceful eviction and the notice was selective. She referred to Ningombam Parijat Singh vs. Chief Commissioner, Govt. of Manipur (1969) 0 AIR(Manipur) 79, stating Dag Chitha is a public document.

Mrs. Th. Babita, counsel for petitioners in WP(C) No. 127 of 2025, adopted Mrs. Pushpa's submissions and further referred to Section 2(g) of the 1978 Act, defining "unauthorized occupant" as someone occupying 6 years before the Act's commencement, arguing it didn't apply to those in possession for 40 years. She contended that if the Act applied, no notice under Section 3 was served, and the eviction case was bad for non-impleading affected parties. She mentioned the timing of the eviction order during exams. She produced new documents showing petitioners' occupation and pending allotment applications. She cited Indrajeet Kaur vs. Nirpal Singh (2001) 1 SCC 706 on compliance with natural justice, and In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures (2024) Legal Eagle (SC) 998, requiring minimum 15 days’ notice and personal hearing. She also cited Grasim Industries Limited vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (2024) Legal Eagle (SC) 1103 regarding violation of natural justice, and In Re Manoj Tibrewal Akash: 2024 INSC 863 on procedures for road widening projects.

The Court stated, “in the present order, this Court considers the question of vacating/modifying the interim order and is not concerned with the merit of the case, even though both sides have argued extensively on the merit of the case.” The Court observed, “from the pleadings of the parties, it is seen that the petitioners are occupants over the government land for the past many years. However, their names have been recorded as encroachers over the public land and allotment orders for the lands under their occupation are yet to be issued by the authority, even though they have applied for the same. From the record, it is seen that some of the petitioners have recorded their names in the revenue records as owners, but any allotment order in this regard has not been produced by the petitioners.”

The Court further stated, “at the moment, this Court is not expressing any opinion as to whether the entry of the petitioners’ names in the revenue records is false and fabricated as alleged by the learned A.G. and the same is left to be decided in appropriate proceeding or in the main matter.” The Court considered the State’s request for developing the 30 ft wide road as part of the Imphal Smart City Project, noting the additional affidavit and satellite map indicating that land occupied by petitioners and others, to the extent of 5 to 15 ft., might be affected.

The Court acknowledged the interim order of 16.12.2020 in WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 and the undertaking/interim order in WP(C) No. 127 of 2025. Regarding the argument that no formal application for vacation/modification was filed, the Court stated, “this Court is of the view that the additional affidavit dated 21.02.2025 filed by the State respondents for vacation/modification of interim order dated 16.12.2020 and subsequent orders can be treated as an application for the said purpose. As such, this Court is hearing the matter on the vacation/modification of the interim orders.”

The Court noted Annexures-R/3 & R/4 listing 39 encroachers and the measurements of land to be affected. The Court recorded, [this Court is conscious of the requirement of development of road for welfare of the general public and also the interest of individual persons. Without expressing any opinion on the pending applications of the petitioners and others for allotment of the land under their possession and also on the question of illegal encroachment, a permission can be granted to the State for development of 30 ft. width road along the eastern side of Imphal River from Sanjenthong to Minuthong in connection with Imphal Smart City Project.”

The Court allowed the proposal for development of the 30 ft. width road on the eastern side of Imphal River from Sanjenthong to Minuthong with the following conditions:

First, “the State authority shall intimate to the petitioners and others the extent of land under their occupation, to be affected by the project for development of 30 ft. width road within 10 days, if not informed earlier.”

Second, “before demolition of the structures and other standing properties over the affected land, evaluation of standing properties including tree has to be ascertained for compensation be given to the affected parties for the same in accordance with law.”

Also Read: Preventive Detention Quashed As 'Blatant Negation Of Constitutional Right' | J&K HC Slams Authorities For Using PSA To Outmaneuver Bail And Suppress Representation

Third, “after intimating the extent of land required, a notice of 15 days be given to the petitioners and others for demolition and removal of structures and other standing property and for vacating from the affected portion of land for development of 30 ft. width road. On failure to do so, the State authority may take up necessary step for demolition of structures and standing property and eviction of the petitioners and others from the affected portion of land.”

Fourth, “for property belonging to the internally displaced persons, special care shall be taken by the State respondents in case of demolition, if any, that the remaining portion of the structure is not affected.”

The Court directed that “with these directions and observations, the interim orders dated 16.12.2020 and 13.03.2025 in WP(C) Nos. 673 of 2020 & 127 of 2025 are modified. However, the petitioners shall not be evicted from the remaining portion of the land under their occupation without the leave of this Court.” The Court clarified that “the pendency of the present writ petitions and the modification of the interim orders shall not bar the State authority from considering the pending applications for allotment. Other contentions of both parties are left open to be agitated at appropriate stage.” The Court concluded, “with these observations and directions made in para 65, 66 & 67, interim orders stand modified and list the main cases on 08.07.2025.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner/s: Mrs. G. Pushpa, Adv. & Mrs. Th. Babita, Adv.

For the respondent/s: Mr. Lenin Hijam, AG assisted by Ms. Sharmila, Adv.

Case Title: Shri Mayengbam Dhoni Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Manipur & Anr. with Khuprengthang Kom & Ors. vs. The State of Manipur & Ors.

Case Number: WP(C) No. 673 of 2020 with WP(C) No. 127 of 2025 with MC(WP(C)) No. 123 of 2025

Bench: Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma

[Read/Download order]