Union of India and 2 others vs Hem Sagar Uprety and another
- Court
- Manipur High Court
SHAMURAILATPA
M SUSHIL
SHARMA
Digitally signed by
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL
SHARMA
Date: 2026.08.31 12:26:59
+05'30'
REPORTABLE
2026:MNHC:191-DB
Sl. No. 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Review Petition No. 8 of 2026
Ref:- WA No. 25 of 2025
1. The Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry
of Road Transport and Highways, Transport Bhawan 1,
Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001, Government of India.
2. The National Highways and Infrastructure Development
Corporation Limited (NHIDCL), represented by its General
rd
Manager (T), having its office at NHIDCL, HQ, 3 Floor PTI
building, 4 Parliament Street, New Delhi – 110001.
3. The General Manager (P), Branch Office, Imphal, The
National Highway and Infrastructure Development
nd
Corporation (NHIDCL), having its office at 2 Floor, Transit
Hostel Officer’s Club, Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel,
Imphal West Manipur – 795004. (now represented by
Deputy General Manager (P), Regional Office, Imphal,
National Highway and Infrastructure Development
Corporation (NHIDCL).
….. Review Petitioners
-Versus-
1. Shri. Hem Sagar Uprety, aged about 59 years, S/o Hari
Prasad Uprety, resident of Parsain, Senapati, P.O. Kalapahar
& P.S. Kangpokpi, Kangpokpi District, Manipur-795122.
2. The Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Kangpokpi
District having its office at DC Office Complex, Kangpokpi,
P.O. & P.S. Kangpokpi, Manipur – 795129.
..... Respondents
Page 1 of 30
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For Review Petitioners Mr. BP Sahu, senior advocate instructed by Mr.
W. Darakeshwar, Sr.PCCG (Senior Panel Counsel
for Central Government) on record
Date of Judgment and
Order
27.08.2026
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(ORAL)
[M. Sundar, CJ]
[1] The following abbreviations/short forms are used in this
order for the sake of brevity/convenience and clarity:
Sl.
No.
Abbreviations/
Short Forms
Full Form/Expansion
1. WA Writ Appeal
2. WAs Writ Appeals
3. WP Writ Petition
4. WPs Writ Petitions
5. MC Miscellaneous Case
6. MCs Miscellaneous Cases
7. said order common judgment and 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, MC(W.A.)
No. 56 of 2025, MC(WP(C)) No. 327 of 2025
and MC(WP(C)) No. 590 of 2025 (order sought
to be reviewed in captioned review petition)
8. NH Act the National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956)
9. CPC the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. 5 of
1908)
10. said lands two parcels of land 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
11. said Project National Highways Project connecting
Kanglatombi and Kangpokpi
12. NHIDCL National Highways and Infrastructure
Development Corporation Limited
Page 2 of 30
[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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
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
B E F O R E
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
(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.
Page 3 of 30
[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.
Page 4 of 30
[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.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
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.
Page 5 of 30
[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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
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.
1. 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.
2. The Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Kangpokpi
District having its office at DC Office Complex, Kangpokpi,
P.O. & P.S. Thoubal Manipur - 795138.
3. 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.
4. 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.
Page 6 of 30
1. 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.
2. The Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Kangpokpi
District having its office at DC Office Complex, Kangpokpi,
P.O. & P.S. Thoubal Manipur - 795138.
3. 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.
4. 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.
1. 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.
2. The Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Kangpokpi
District having its office at DC Office Complex, Kangpokpi,
P.O. & P.S. Thoubal Manipur - 795138.
3. 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.
4. 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
Page 7 of 30
Vs.
1. 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.
2. The Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Kangpokpi
District/CALA having its office at DC Office Complex,
Kangpokpi, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal Manipur - 795138.
3. The Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Imphal West
District having its office at DC Office Complex, Lamphelpat,
P.O. & P.S. Lamphel Manipur – 795004.
4. 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.
5. 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.
1. 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.
2. The Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Kangpokpi
District having its office at DC Office Complex, Kangpokpi,
P.O. & P.S. Thoubal Manipur - 795138.
3. 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.
4. 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
Page 8 of 30
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.
1. 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.
2. The Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Kangpokpi
District having its office at DC Office Complex, Kangpokpi,
P.O. & P.S. Thoubal Manipur - 795138.
3. The Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Imphal West
District having its office at DC Office Complex, Lamphelpat,
P.O. & P.S. Lamphel Manipur – 795004.
4. 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.
5. 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
For appellant in W.A. No. 25 of 2025 Mr. Syed Murtaza Ahmed along with Mr.
Md. Abdul Baqee Khan, Advocates
For respondents in W.A. No. 25 of 2018 Mr. W. Darakeshwar, Senior Panel
Counsel for Central Government (Sr.
PCCG) for respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4
Mr. W. Niranjit, Deputy Government
Advocate for respondent No. 2, led by
Mr. Lenin Hijam, Senior Advocate and
Advocate General for State of Manipur
For applicant in MC (W.A.) No. 56 of
2025
Mr. Syed Murtaza Ahmed along with Mr.
Md. Abdul Baqee Khan, Advocates
For respondents in MC (W.A.) No. 56 of
2025
Mr. W. Darakeshwar, Senior Panel
Counsel for Central Government (Sr.
PCCG) for respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4
Mr. W. Niranjit, Deputy Government
Advocate for respondent No. 2, led by
Page 9 of 30
Mr. Lenin Hijam, Senior Advocate and
Advocate General for State of Manipur
For applicant in MC [W.P. (C)] No. 327 of
2025
Mr. Syed Murtaza Ahmed along with Mr.
Md. Abdul Baqee Khan, Advocates
For respondents in MC [W.P. (C)] No. 327
of 2025
Mr. W. Darakeshwar, Senior Panel
Counsel for Central Government (Sr.
PCCG) for respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4
Mr. W. Niranjit, Deputy Government
Advocate for respondent No. 2, led by
Mr. Lenin Hijam, Senior Advocate and
Advocate General for State of Manipur
For applicant in MC [W.P. (C)] No. 590 of
2025
Mr. Syed Murtaza Ahmed along with Mr.
Md. Abdul Baqee Khan, Advocates
For respondents in MC [W.P. (C)] No. 590
of 2025
Mr. W. Darakeshwar, Senior Panel
Counsel for Central Government (Sr.
PCCG) for respondent Nos. 1, 4 & 5
Mr. W. Niranjit, Deputy Government
Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 & 3, led
by Mr. Lenin Hijam, Senior Advocate and
Advocate General for State of Manipur
For petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 348 of 2025 Mr. Syed Murtaza Ahmed along with Mr.
Md. Abdul Baqee Khan, Advocates
For respondents in W.P. (C) No. 348 of
2025
Mr. W. Darakeshwar, Senior Panel
Counsel for Central Government (Sr.
PCCG) for respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4
Mr. W. Niranjit, Deputy Government
Advocate for respondent No. 2, led by
Mr. Lenin Hijam, Senior Advocate and
Advocate General for State of Manipur
For petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 630 of 2025 Mr. Syed Murtaza Ahmed along with Mr.
Md. Abdul Baqee Khan, Advocates
For respondents in W.P. (C) No. 630 of
2025
Mr. W. Darakeshwar, Senior Panel
Counsel for Central Government (Sr.
PCCG) for respondent Nos. 1, 4 & 5
Mr. W. Niranjit, Deputy Government
Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 & 3, led
by Mr. Lenin Hijam, Senior Advocate and
Advocate General for State of Manipur
Date of Judgment & Order 28.04.2026
COMMON JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(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
Page 10 of 30
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
rd
appellant expresses regret. As regards the 3 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
Page 11 of 30
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,
Page 12 of 30
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.
(C) No. 348 of 2025, writ appellant took out an MC in MC [W.P. (C)] No.
327 of 2025 with a prayer to maintain status quo qua said lands till disposal
of the writ petition; that in this MC, a Hon’ble Single Judge made an order
dated 28.04.2025 wherein and whereby the Single Bench did not accede to
the interim prayer for status quo but made it clear that if said lands are
affected by expansion qua said project and if the matters are ultimately
decided in favour of writ appellant by the Deputy Commissioner
Kangpokpi District, the writ appellant will be eligible for compensation as
per statutory provisions; that writ appellant not satisfied with this
28.04.2025 interim order, has preferred the captioned intra court appeal,
viz., W.A. No. 25 of 2025 and to be noted, W.A. No. 25 of 2025 has been
filed in this Court on 12.05.2025; that thereafter, the three representations
sent by writ appellant being representations dated 14.04.2025, 03.02.2025
and 10.02.2025 came to be disposed of by the Deputy Commissioner,
Kangpokpi District in and vide an order dated 04.07.2025 bearing
Reference No. DC (KPI) 10/1/2016; that in and vide order dated
04.07.2025, the Deputy Commissioner, Kangpokpi District, inter alia held
that certain extent of lands referred to in the representation by the writ
appellant are lying outside the said project and as regards other extent i.e.,
lands cited as serial Nos. 218 and 219 in a published list, compensation
amount has been deposited into the account concerned and writ appellant
can claim the same by submitting required documents; that assailing the
Page 13 of 30
04.07.2025 order/proceedings, writ appellant filed another writ petition
being W.P. (C) No. 630 of 2025 on 18.08.2025; that in this W.P. (C) No.
630 of 2025, writ appellant besides challenging 04.07.2025
order/proceedings disposing of his representations, also sought for field
verification and compensation; that this W.P. (C) No. 630 of 2025 is also
one of the captioned cluster of matters having been tagged with other
matters; to be noted, W.P. (C) No. 348 of 2025 is also part of the captioned
cluster of matters, the same having been tagged with the captioned cluster;
that it is in such scenario that the previous proceedings dated 31.03.2026
(extracted and reproduced supra ) was made by this Division Bench.
[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:
Page 14 of 30
Page 15 of 30
Page 16 of 30
Page 17 of 30
Page 18 of 30
Page 19 of 30
Page 20 of 30
[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
Page 21 of 30
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:
(i) Appellant represented by his counsel on record, Mr.
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
Page 22 of 30
(to be noted, the report has been scanned and
reproduced supra);
(ii) NHIDCL submits that the afore-referred 674.75 square
feet equivalent to 0.0154 acres in CS DAG No. 1099 in
031 Kanglatombi Village, Sekmai Tehsil Lamshang
Sub Division, Imphal West District now identified as
regards writ appellant will suffice in so far as writ
appellant is concerned for said project;
(iii) State counsel Mr. W. Niranjit led by Mr. Lenin Hijam,
learned Advocate General for State of Manipur,
submits that as regards afore-referred land identified
now, the same is private land belonging to writ
appellant and therefore land acquisition proceedings
under National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956) will
be commenced by putting writ appellant on notice,
following the statutory procedure and Rules thereunder
strictly and give compensation to writ appellant in
accordance with the statute and the Rules thereunder.
[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.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
Sandeep
P.S. I : Upload forthwith
P.S. II : All concerned will stand bound by web copy uploaded in High Court
website inter alia as the same is QR coded. ’
[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
Page 23 of 30
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 :
(i) As already alluded to supra, captioned review
has been filed by resorting to Order XLVII Rule
1 of CPC, Section 114 of CPC and Chapter IX of
the High Court of Manipur Rules, 2019. Suffice
to write that a conjoint reading of all the 3
(three) provisions brings to light that a review
Page 24 of 30
would lie on 3 (three) grounds viz., (a) discovery
of new and important matter or evidence which
after exercise of due diligence was not within the
knowledge or could not be produced at the time
when said order was made, (b) on account on
some mistake or error apparent on the face of
record and (c) any other sufficient reason. As
regards the third ground i.e., any other sufficient
reason, Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of
case laws has made it clear that noscitur a
sociis principle would apply and that the third
ground of review should sit nicely with grounds
1 and 2. In this view of the matter, we find that
the sheet anchor argument and ground that
survey by revenue authorities cannot decide title
does not fit into anyone of these 3 (three)
grounds. The reason is, there was an elaborate
survey by revenue authorities and all counsel
including counsel for review petitioner (NHIDCL)
have signed the same and it is nobody’s case
that this report extracted and reproduced in the
said order confers title much less is a conclusive
title to said lands which is in the form of 3 (three)
Dag numbers, 2 (two) Jamabandis and 2 (two)
Page 25 of 30
parcels of two particular lands, the details of
which have been set out in said order. Said order
only means that land acquisition proceedings
under NH Act qua said lands has to be resorted
to and if any dispute regarding apportionment
predicated on title arises it will be governed by
Section 3H(4) of NH Act and there will be allusion
about this elsewhere infra in this order;
(ii) Notwithstanding the aforesaid point, we did
examine the ground which was urged. The
ground urged, in our considered view, is no
argument in a review petition and the clinching
reason is NH Act is clearly a self-contained Code.
The test to examine whether a particular statute
is a self-contained Code was laid down by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the oft quoted and
celebrated Girnar Traders reported in (2011)
3 SCC 1 [Girnar Traders (3) Versus State of
Maharashtra and others] . On facts, Girnar
was a matter where certain questions of law
pertaining to interpretation of statutes and
validity of legislations were examined. In
Girnar , Hon’ble Supreme Court, speaking
Page 26 of 30
through a Constitution Bench, made it clear that
a self-contained Code is a complete legislation
with regard to the purpose for which it is enacted
and a self-contained Code is one that provides
for a complete machinery to deal with the
purpose sought to be achieved by that law and
its dependence on other legislations is either nil
or minimum. To be noted, this celebrated
Girnar principle was reiterated by a 7 (seven)
member larger Bench in Re: Interplay reported
in (2024) 6 SCC 1 [Interplay Between
Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Indian
Stamp Act, 1899, In Re] . This Court is acutely
conscious that Interplay arises out of an
Arbitration issue and on facts, it examined the
question of an arbitration agreement being
executed in stamp paper of appropriate value
and registration of an arbitration agreement.
Nonetheless, we respectfully refer to the 7
(seven) member larger Bench in In Re:
Interplay reported in (2024) 6 SCC 1 for the
limited purpose of highlighting that Girnar
principle qua self-contained Code and test for
Page 27 of 30
self-contained Code rendered in 2011 continues
to operate and it has been applied by Hon’ble
Supreme Court even in 2024. In this view of the
matter, if the Girnar principle is respectfully
applied, this Court has no hesitation in coming to
the conclusion that NH Act is clearly a self-
contained Code. The reason is, it provides for
every conceivable possibility when it comes to
the purpose of the statue and its dependence on
other statues is not just minimal and it is almost
absent;
(iii) As regards the specific point that has been raised
in the instant review petition at hand, with
regard to title, sub-section (4) of Section 3H of
NH Act kicks in. Section 3H (4) of NH Act to the
extent relevant, reads as follows:
‘ 3H. Deposit and payment of amount.—
(1) ……………………………………………
(2) …………………………………………..
(3) …………………………………………..
(4) 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.
(5) ………………….
(6) …………………’
(iv) As regards acquisition, law is well settled that no
person shall be deprived of his property save by
Page 28 of 30
authority of law. Authority of law in the case at
hand is resorting to the NH Act. As regards
acquisition proceedings by resorting to NH Act, a
Notification vide Section 3A of NH Act has been
made, this Notification has been published in the
Gazette of India dated 08.04.2021 and the same
is before us as part of the case file. It is very
fairly submitted that the 3(three) Dag numbers
qua the first respondent do not find place in this
Notification and only survey numbers have been
mentioned. It is also very fairly submitted that
there is nothing to show correlation of the
Survey numbers and Dag numbers. Be that as it
may, assuming for a moment, on a demurer i.e.,
an extreme demurer, even if any dispute arises
with regard to whom the compensation is
payable, the competent authority can always
refer the matter to the principal civil Court of
original jurisdiction vide sub-section (4) of
Section 3H. Therefore, this argument i.e., the
sheet anchor argument that a survey report
cannot confer title while cannot be subjected to
disputation as a proposition in absolute terms
Page 29 of 30
does not come to the aid of petitioner in review
campaign;
(v) The review petitioner, NHIDCL is not able to
demonstrate or place before this Court any
material regarding acquisition of said land in
question much less payment of compensation for
the same. Therefore, all that the said order does
is, it kick starts land acquisition proceedings vide
NH Act which is authority of law within the
meaning of Section 300A of the Constitution.
[12] In the light of the narration and adumbration of
dispositive reasoning supra, captioned review petition fails to pass
muster in the Admission Board (as already alluded to supra) and the
same is dismissed. In the light of the regret expressed, this Court
refrains itself from imposing costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
Sushil/John Telen Kom
P.S. I : Upload forthwith
P.S. II : All concerned will stand bound by instant order vide
web copy uploaded in High Court website inter-alia as
the same is QR coded.
Page 30 of 30