AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ahanthem Bimol Singh, J
[1] Heard Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners.
[2] Issue notice returnable within 4(four) weeks.
[3] Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned GA accepts notice on behalf of all the respondent and hence, no formal notice is called for.
[4] The case of the petitioners is that they are the owners/possessors of the agricultural land under Patta No. 91(old), 561/618 (new) covered by C.S.Dag No. 378/395 (sheet No.1) of Koirengei Village and under Patta No. 91(Old), 302/561 (New) covered by C.S. Dag No. 289/378 (sheet No. 1) Koirengei Village and under Patta No. 91 (Old), 1/302 (New) covered by C.S.Dag No. 94/289 (sheet No. 1) of Koirengei Village and as the petitioners have no other land, they constructed their residential buildings on the said agricultural land. It is also the case of the petitioners that they constructed their residential buildings prior to enforcement of the Manipur Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2014. The further case of the petitioners is that without giving them any notice or opportunity of being heard, the DC, Imphal East issued an order dated 25-04-2022 directing, inter alia, that the present petitioners and other persons to restore their paddy land in its original form within 3(three) days’ time from the date of receipt of the said order. Thereafter the DC, Imphal East issued a notice dated 26-04-2022 directing the petitioners and other persons to do the needful for restoration of their respective paddy lands in its original form within 3(three) days’ time from the date of receipt of the said Notice, and failure to comply with the said order shall invite necessary action as stipulated under the said Act.
[5] Having been aggrieved, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
Mr. Y. Nirmolcand, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that under Section 3 of the Manipur Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2014, it is provided that on and from the date of commencement of the Act, the holder of paddy land shall not undertake any activity for the conversion or reclamation of such paddy land except in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Learned Senior counsel pointed out that the said Act came into force w.e.f. 02-09-2014 and in the present case, the petitioners constructed their residential buildings prior to enactment of the said act and therefore, the provision of section 3 of the Act is not applicable in the case of the present petitioners. Since the petitioners residential buildings have been constructed before the enactment of the said Act, the learned Senior counsel strenuously argued that in any case, the DC should have made an inquiry as to whether the residential buildings of the petitioners were constructed prior to enactment of the said act or not and without undertaking such an inquiry, the action taken by the DC in issuing impugned order and notice is very much arbitrary and ultra vires of the provision of the Act.
[6] It is further submitted that under section 11 of the said Act, it is provided that before taking any action by the DC, a reasonable opportunity of being heard is to be given to the affected parties. In the present case, the authorities have not given any notice or any opportunity of being heard before issuing the said impugned order and notice. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that the impugned order and notice have been issued by the DC, Imphal East behind the back of the petitioners without giving any opportunity of being heard and accordingly, the said order is liable to be set aside. Learned Senior counsel lastly submitted that in order to protect the right and valuable properties of the petitioners, status-quo of the land of the petitioners needs to be maintained till the disposal of the present writ petition.
[7] Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned GA, on the other hand submitted that the DC is empowered under the aforesaid Act to take up necessary action for preserving agricultural land and the DC has acted and issued the impugned order and notice after following due process of law. So far as the allegations made by the petitioners about not giving any opportunity of being heard, it is submitted that he may be given some time to get necessary instruction from the authorities to verify as to whether the petitioners were given any notice or not prior to issuing the impugned order/notice.
[8] After hearing the rival contention of the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have been able to make out a prima facie case for passing interim order. Accordingly, as an interim measure, it is hereby directed that status-quo in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioners should be maintained till the next returnable date.
[9] As prayed for, list this case again on 31-05-2022.