The Union Of India vs Shri. Hem Sagar Uprety

[M. Sundar, CJ] [1] The following abbreviations/short forms are used in this order for the sake of brevity/convenience and clarity:

[2] Captioned review petition has been filed in this Court on 17.08.2026 seeking review of an ‘order dated 28.04.2026 made in Writ Appeal No. 25 of 2025, WP(C) No. 348 of 2025, WP(C) No. 630 of 2025 and MCs thereat’ (‘said order’ for the sake of convenience and clarity). [3] Captioned review has been presented in this Court by resorting to Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, Section 114 of CPC besides Chapter IX of the High Court of Manipur Rules, 2019. [4] Captioned review was listed in the Admission Board day before yesterday (25.08.2026) and the following proceedings were made :

‘Sp. D.Sl.No. 1

Review. Pet. No. 8 of 2026 [Ref: W.A. No. 25 of 2025]

Union of India; & 2 Ors.

…Petitioner/s Vrs. Hem Sagar Uprety; & Anr.

…Respondent/s

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR

(ORDER) (Order of the Court was made by Mr. M. Sundar, CJ) 25.08.2026

[1] A very peculiar and strange scenario has unfurled in the captioned matter today. [2] Captioned matter is listed as item No. 1 in the supplementary list today. [3] Mr. W. Darakeshwar, learned Sr. PCCG (Senior Panel Counsel for Central Government) along with Mr. Jeson, learned counsel are before this Court.

[4] Captioned review petition was argued nearly for an hour by Mr. W. Darakeshwar, learned Sr. PCCG. Thereafter, the learned Sr. PCCG requested to have the matter passed over to get instructions as to whether the captioned review petition can be withdrawn and necessary endorsement can be made.

[5] Afore-referred request of learned Sr. PCCG was acceded to but it was made clear that captioned matter will be kept passed over and called again at half past 12 only for the purpose of getting instructions regarding withdrawal. On this note, it was made clear to learned Sr. PCCG that if he has any other point to be projected advanced the same can be done, so that in second call at half past 12 there are no further arguments and it would be only withdrawal or orders of this Court.

[6] However, when the matter was called again at half past 12 (second call), Mr. BP Sahu, learned senior advocate was before this Court on the Video Conferencing (VC) platform and learned senior counsel submitted that he now has instructions to appear in the matter and he also requested for listing on another day so that he gets full and complete instructions to assist this Court. Learned senior counsel was informed about what unfurled in the ‘first call’. [7] Mr. W. Darakeshwar, learned Sr. PCCG submitted that instructions to brief/engage senior counsel was given to him after ‘first call’ and after elaborate submissions for about an hour, when the matter was kept passed over only for getting instructions regarding withdrawal and that such instructions was given by Mr. Rafique Ahmed Choudhury, Deputy General Manager (Projects) National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL) Regional Office-Imphal who has also verified and signed captioned review petition.

[8] Though this Court is of the considered view that such a practice is undesirable, in the interest of NHIDCL, the review petitioners i.e., NHIDCL and to make sure that NHIDCL is not deprived of the benefit of submissions of learned senior counsel, Mr. BP Sahu, captioned matter will stand over to 27.08.2026 and shall be listed under the cause list caption ‘ADJOURNED ADMISSION’ and it will be listed in the daily list.

[9] Though obvious, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any shred of view or opinion on merits of the captioned review petition in instant proceedings. Instant proceedings have been made only for the purpose of comprehensively capturing what unfurled in Court today and the view supra is only with regard to arguing the matter for about an hour taking requesting for a pass over thereafter for getting instructions for withdrawal and thereafter engaging a senior counsel to appear. To be noted, this means that the captioned review petition in the Admission Board will be heard on merits in the next listing, untrammeled by instant proceedings.

[10] However, this Court deems it appropriate to write that Mr. Rafique Ahmed Choudhury, Deputy General Manager (Projects) National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL) Regional Office-Imphal) who has verified the captioned review petition shall remain present in Court day after tomorrow and explain post hearing instruction to Sr. PCCG to engage senior counsel when the matter stood passed over at the request of Sr. PCCG for getting instructions regarding withdrawal. [11] List under the aforesaid cause list caption in the daily list day after tomorrow i.e., on 27.08.2026.

Sapana’

[5] Pursuant to the afore-referred proceedings more particularly, paragraph 10 thereat, Mr. Rafique Ahmed Choudhury, Deputy General Manager (Projects) National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL) {Regional Office-Imphal} was present in Court and he expressed regret. This is recorded and this aspect of the matter is given a closure.

[6] As regards review, Mr. BP Sahu, learned senior advocate, instructed by Mr. W. Darakeshwar, learned Sr.PCCG is before this Court.

[7] Learned senior counsel very fairly submitted that he has been briefed about the submissions made by Sr. PCCG in the previous listing on 25.08.2026 and he would make only further submissions.

[8] At the outset, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the entire said order and the same is as follows :

‘REPORTABLE

Sl. No. 11-16

W.A. No. 25 of 2025 Shri Hem Sagar Uprety, aged about 58 years old, S/o Hari Prasad Uprety, a resident of Parsain, Senapati, P.O. Kalapahar & P.S. Kangpokpi, Kangpokpi District, Manipur - 795122.

Appellant Vs.

The Union of India represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Transport Bhawan, 1, Parliament Street New Delhi-110001, Government of India.

The Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Kangpokpi District having its office at DC Office Complex, Kangpokpi, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal Manipur - 795138.

The National Highway and Infrastructure Development Corporation NHIDCL, represented by its General Manager (T) having its office at NHIDCL, HQ, 3rd Floor PTI Building, 4 Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001.

The General Manager (P), Branch Office, Imphal, The National Highway and Infrastructure Development Corporation (NHIDCL), having its Office, at 2nd Floor, Transit Hostel Officer's Club, Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West, Manipur-795004.

Respondents With MC (W.A.) No. 56 of 2025 Shri Hem Sagar Uprety, aged about 58 years old, S/o Hari Prasad Uprety, a resident of Parsain, Senapati, P.O. Kalapahar & P.S. Kangpokpi, Kangpokpi District, Manipur - 795122.

Applicant Vs.

The Union of India represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Transport Bhawan, 1, Parliament Street New Delhi-110001, Government of India.

The Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Kangpokpi District having its office at DC Office Complex, Kangpokpi, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal Manipur - 795138.

The National Highway and Infrastructure Development Corporation NHIDCL, represented by its General Manager (T) having its office at NHIDCL, HQ, 3rd Floor PTI Building, 4 Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001.

The General Manager (P), Branch Office, Imphal, The National Highway and Infrastructure Development Corporation (NHIDCL), having its Office, at 2nd Floor, Transit Hostel Officer's Club, Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West, Manipur-795004.

Respondents With MC [W.P. (C)] No. 327 of 2025 Shri Hem Sagar Uprety, aged about 58 years old, S/o Hari Prasad Uprety, a resident of Parsain, Senapati, P.O. Kalapahar & P.S. Kangpokpi, Kangpokpi District, Manipur - 795122.

Applicant Vs.

The Union of India represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Transport Bhawan, 1, Parliament Street New Delhi-110001, Government of India.

The Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Kangpokpi District having its office at DC Office Complex, Kangpokpi, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal Manipur - 795138.

The National Highway and Infrastructure Development Corporation NHIDCL, represented by its General Manager (T) having its office at NHIDCL, HQ, 3rd Floor PTI Building, 4 Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001.

The General Manager (P), Branch Office, Imphal, The National Highway and Infrastructure Development Corporation (NHIDCL), having its Office, at 2nd Floor, Transit Hostel Officer's Club, Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West, Manipur-795004.

Respondents With MC [W.P. (C)] No. 590 of 2025 Shri Hem Sagar Uprety, aged about 58 years old, S/o Hari Prasad Uprety, a resident of Parsain, Senapati, P.O. Kalapahar & P.S. Kangpokpi, Kangpokpi District, Manipur - 795122.

Applicant Vs.

The Union of India represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Transport Bhawan, 1, Parliament Street New Delhi-110001, Government of India.

The Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Kangpokpi District/CALA having its office at DC Office Complex, Kangpokpi, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal Manipur - 795138.

The Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Imphal West District having its office at DC Office Complex, Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel Manipur – 795004.

The National Highway and Infrastructure Development Corporation NHIDCL, represented by its General Manager (T) having its office at NHIDCL, HQ, 3rd Floor PTI Building, 4 Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001.

The General Manager (P), Branch Office, Imphal, The National Highway and Infrastructure Development Corporation (NHIDCL), having its Office, at 2nd Floor, Transit Hostel Officer's Club, Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West, Manipur-795004.

Respondents With WP (C) No. 348 of 2025 Shri Hem Sagar Uprety, aged about 58 years old, S/o Hari Prasad Uprety, a resident of Parsain, Senapati, P.O. Kalapahar & P.S. Kangpokpi, Kangpokpi District, Manipur - 795122.

Petitioner Vs.

The Union of India represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Transport Bhawan, 1, Parliament Street New Delhi-110001, Government of India.

The Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Kangpokpi District having its office at DC Office Complex, Kangpokpi, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal Manipur - 795138.

The National Highway and Infrastructure Development Corporation NHIDCL, represented by its General Manager (T) having its office at NHIDCL, HQ, 3rd Floor PTI Building, 4 Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001.

The General Manager (P), Branch Office, Imphal, The National Highway and Infrastructure Development Corporation (NHIDCL), having its Office, at 2nd Floor, Transit Hostel Officer's Club, Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West, Manipur-795004.

Respondents With W.P. (C) No. 630 of 2025 Shri Hem Sagar Uprety, aged about 58 years old, S/o Hari Prasad Uprety, a resident of Parsain, Senapati, P.O. Kalapahar & P.S. Kangpokpi, Kangpokpi District, Manipur - 795122.

Petitioner Vs.

The Union of India represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Transport Bhawan, 1, Parliament Street New Delhi-110001, Government of India.

The Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Kangpokpi District having its office at DC Office Complex, Kangpokpi, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal Manipur - 795138.

The Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Imphal West District having its office at DC Office Complex, Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel Manipur – 795004.

The National Highway and Infrastructure Development Corporation NHIDCL, represented by its General Manager (T) having its office at NHIDCL, HQ, 3rd Floor PTI Building, 4 Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001.

The General Manager (P), Branch Office, Imphal, The National Highway and Infrastructure Development Corporation (NHIDCL), having its Office, at 2nd Floor, Transit Hostel Officer's Club, Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West, Manipur-795004.

Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH

(ORAL)

(M. Sundar, CJ)

[1] This common order will now dispose of/govern the captioned cluster of matters.

[2] In the captioned cluster of matters, there is one ‘Writ Appeal’ (‘WA’ for the sake of brevity), two ‘Writ Petitions’ (‘WPs’ in plural and ‘WP’ in singular for the sake of convenience) and three ‘Miscellaneous Cases’ (‘MCs’ in plural and ‘MC’ in singular for the sake of convenience).

[3] In this order, presence of counsel before this Court is recorded referring to the ranks of the parties they represent, as in the WA. [4] Mr. Syed Murtaza Ahmed and Mr. Md. Abdul Baqee Khan, learned counsel on record for sole appellant, Mr. W. Darakeshwar, learned Senior Panel Counsel for Central Government (Sr. PCCG) for respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4 and Mr. W. Niranjit, learned State counsel for respondent No. 2, led by Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned senior advocate and Advocate General for State of Manipur are before this Court. Mr. Mahesh Chaudhari, Deputy Commissioner, Kangpokpi District and Mr. Mayanglambam Rajkumar Singh, Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West District are present in Court assisting learned State counsel, Mr. W. Niranjit.

[5] When the captioned cluster of matters were last listed before this Division Bench on 31.03.2026, the following proceedings was made:

‘31.03.2026 [1] In the hearing today, Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior advocate instructed by Mr. Abdul Baqee Khan and Mr. Murtaza Ahmed, learned counsel on record for writ appellant is before this Court. To be noted, writ appellant, Mr. Hem Sagar Uprety is present in Court along with his counsel on record.

[2] On the side of respondents, Mr. W. Darakishwor, learned Senior Panel Counsel for Central Government (Sr. PCCG) for respondent Nos. 1,3 & 4 and Mr. W. Niranjit, learned State counsel for respondent No.2 (The Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Kangpokpi District, Manipur) are present in the physical Court.

[3] In sum and substance, the writ appellant contends that he has been given Jamabandi (this Court is informed that this is a patta under Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960). There are two jamabandis and the same pertain to two parcels of land which we are informed are contiguous, these ‘two parcels of land are comprised in 3(three) Dag numbers namely, ‘Dag No. 1269, 1270/1502 and 1278/1283’ all situate in 031 Kanglatombi Village, Sekmei Tehsil, Lamsang Sub-Division Imphal West District’ (‘said lands’ for the sake of convenience and clarity). According to photocopies of the jambandis placed before this Court and submissions of learned counsel for writ appellant made on instructions from writ appellant who is present in Court, the land extent vide first two Dag numbers namely, Dag No. 1269, 1270/1502 admeasures 0.05917 hectare (0.1462 acres). In this regard, there is a typographical error in the English translation which reads as ‘0.01462’ acre, for which learned counsel for appellant expresses regret. As regards the 3^rd Dag number viz., 1278/1283, the extent of land is 0.01012 hectare (0.025 acre). It is contended that writ appellant has put up two separate super structures (residential houses in said lands in 1992 and his three daughters and one son are living there).

[4] The case of the appellant is that said lands are to be acquired for proposed alignment of four lane ‘National Highways Project connecting Kanglatombi and Kangpokpi’ (‘said Project’ for the sake of convenience and clarity).

[5] A photograph of the two residential houses (photograph taken with GPS Map Camera) has been placed before this Court by learned counsel for appellant and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:

[6] As regards the respondents, learned State counsel submits that ‘National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956)’ {‘said Act’ for the sake of convenience and clarity} comes into play but both learned State counsel are unable to decisively tell us about whether acquisition proceedings have been initiated and if yes, what is the stage of acquisition proceedings?. In this regard, it is deemed appropriate to record that a sheet of paper produced by the appellant {Annexure A/5 of WP(C) No.348 of 2025} talks about final award amount. This sheet of paper is a tabulation and according to writ appellant serial Nos. 218 and 219 thereat which refers to lands comprised in Survey No. 2163 is a reference to said lands. There is no Dag number in this sheet and therefore, we refrain from expressing any opinion on this submission at this juncture.

[7] In the light of narrative thus far, we deem it appropriate to direct learned State counsel to produce entire records pertaining to said lands including record pertaining to acquisition or any other proceedings, if any. In this regard, we also deem it appropriate to direct the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West District, Manipur and Deputy Commissioner, Kangpokpi District, Manipur to be present in Court in the next listing, obviously, with the records and assist the learned State counsel. To be noted, while writ appellant has chosen to array Deputy Commissioner, Kangpokpi District, Manipur as respondent No.2, learned State counsel submits that the records are with Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West District, Manipur. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to direct both Deputy Commissioners to be present in Court. This Court is constrained to requisition presence of officers as affidavit-in-opposition of respondent No.2 is bereft of critical particulars and learned State Counsel unable to give requisite details regarding acquisition (if there is one). Let them remain present in Court (physical Court) in the next listing which will be on 28.04.2026.

[8] List on 28.04.2026.’

[6] The afore-referred proceedings shall now be read as an integral part and parcel of instant order. This also means that some of the abbreviations, short forms and short references used in the afore-referred earlier proceedings shall continue to be used in the instant proceedings also. [7] The captioned matters were mentioned stating that Deputy Commissioner, Kangpokpi District, has to travel back and his presence in his station today has become imperative owing to certain administrative exigencies. In this scenario, with the consent of all the afore-referred counsel, the captioned matters were taken up.

[8] Before proceeding further, this Court deems it appropriate, for the sake of completion of facts, to record some more aspects of the factual matrix which will be in addition to those captured in the earlier proceedings dated 31.03.2026. To be noted, parties will be referred either by name/designation or rank in the WA for the sake of convenience and clarity. As regards said lands and acquisition for said project, writ appellant had sent three representations dated 14.04.2024, 03.02.2025 and 10.02.2025; that writ appellant filed W.P. (C) No. 348 of 2025 on 24.04.2025 inter alia with a prayer to not to make any developmental activities qua said project pending the three representations and until the three representations are disposed of as per order of a Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court being order dated 18.02.2025 made in W.P. (C) No. 128 of 2025 along with MC [W.P. (C)] No. 124 of 2025 thereat; that in this W.P.

[9] Reverting to the proceedings today, all the afore-referred counsel before this Court submitted in one voice in unison that post 31.03.2026 proceedings a joint site inspection/verification/joint survey was held on 20.04.2026 and a report with four Annexures, viz., Annexures A-D was drawn up. A scanned reproduction of the same as placed before this Court and as agreed to (as a correct report) by all learned counsel before this Court is as follows:

[10] Thereafter, learned counsel for appellant, Mr. Syed Murtaza Ahmed and Mr. W. Darakeshwar, learned Sr. PCCG for respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4, to be noted, respondent Nos. 3 & 4, for all practical purposes is ‘National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited’ (‘NHIDCL’ for the sake of convenience) submitted that they are fully satisfied with the afore-referred joint inspection/joint survey, afore-referred report that has been drawn up and the findings thereat. In this regard, it is necessary to record that Mr. Syed Murtaza Ahmed, learned counsel for appellant, submits that he was present during the joint inspection on behalf of writ appellant with due mandate from writ appellant and wife of writ appellant, Ms. Tika Devi Upreti was also present throughout the inspection. As regards NHIDCL, Mr. W. Darakeshwar, learned Sr. PCCG, submits that officials/officers of NHIDCL namely, Mihal Raza and Gaurav Ranbaj were present throughout the joint inspection/joint survey and on instructions, he submits that the survey report is acceptable and the land found to be necessary (in so far as writ appellant is concerned) is, for the present, sufficient for said project.

[11] As regards State counsel, Mr. W. Niranjit, who is led by Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Advocate General for State of Manipur, submitted on instructions from the afore-referred two Deputy Commissioners and all others concerned that appropriate land acquisition proceedings will be initiated under said Act, i.e., National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956) as regards the land i.e., identified land as required for said project in so far as writ appellant’s land is concerned, being land ad measuring 674.75 square feet which this Court is informed is equivalent to 0.0154 acres in CS Dag No. 1099 in 031 Kanglatombi Village, Sekmai Tehsil Lamshang Sub Division, Imphal West District. As regards stated position of the parties captured and set out supra, Mr. Syed Murtaza Ahmed, learned counsel on record for writ appellant, learned State counsel, Mr. W. Niranjit and Mr. W. Darakeshwar, learned Sr. PCCG for respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4 (more particularly counsel for NHIDCL which is requisitioning body qua land acquisition proceedings, made suitable endorsements in the case file and scanned reproduction of the endorsements are as follows:

[12] For the sake of specificity, we make a broad adumbration of points that have emerged by consensus:

Syed Murtaza Ahmed and Mr. Md. Abdul Baqee Khan are fully satisfied with the joint inspection/joint survey and are wholly satisfied with the report drawn up and findings thereat pursuant to inspection on 20.04.2026 (to be noted, the report has been scanned and reproduced supra);

[13] As we have requisitioned the personal appearance of the Deputy Commissioners of Kangpokpi District and Imphal West District and as they are present today, they stand discharged from captioned proceedings.

[14] In the light of the narrative thus far, the long-drawn proceedings in this Court vide captioned matters, namely, one WA, two WPs and three MCs are given a closure, the same are disposed of as closed on above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

FR/NFR Sandeep

[9] The afore-referred said order i.e., 32 pages, 14 paragraphs order, captures factual matrix, trajectory the matter has taken and the issues which fell for consideration in the legal drill before this Division Bench which culminated in said order. Therefore, we refrain from burdening this order by setting out the same again.

Suffice to write that as regards factual matrix, trajectory the matter took in culminating in said order and the points urged and decided qua said order, said order reproduced supra can be usefully referred to. [10] As regards the review at hand, the sheet anchor contention of the learned senior counsel and learned Sr. PCCG for the review petitioner i.e., NHIDCL is the survey conducted by Revenue authorities cannot decide title qua said lands. While there can be no quarrel as regards this contention when presented as a pristine proposition the question is whether this point comes to the aid of petitioner as regards review prayer.

[11] This Court carefully considered the submissions as well as the 8 (eight) review grounds set out in grounds of review viz., A to H. This Court, after considering the grounds, after hearing the arguments of learned senior counsel and learned Sr. PCCG, has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the captioned review petition is bereft of merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. The reasons are as follows :

‘3H. Deposit and payment of amount.— (1) ……………………………………………

…………………………………………..

…………………………………………..

If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated.

………………….

…………………’