Chabungbam (O) Leibakleima Devi v. State of Manipur and 5 Ors
Court: High Court of Manipur
Bench: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GUNESHWAR SHARMA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Manipur judgment dated 2025-09-07. Chabungbam (O) Leibakleima Devi v. State of Manipur and 5 Ors. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
Item No. 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL WP(C) No. 696 of 2025 Chabungbam (O) Leibakleima Devi. …Petitioner - Versus - State of Manipur & 5 Ors. …Respondents B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA O R D E R 08-09-2025 [1] Heard Mr. S. Rupachandra, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Kh. Chetan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Y. Ashang, learned Government Advocate assisted by Mr. A. Bheigya Meitei, learned junior Government counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6; and Mr. D. Julius Riamei, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. [2] At the outset, Mr. S. Rupachandra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that he is confining to prayer No. v) in the writ petition and the writ petition may be disposed of by directing the respondents to consider and pass an appropriate order to the representation dated 05-06-2025 (Annexure A/2) submitted by the petitioner to the respondents.
By the representation, the petitioner prays for returning the land used by the respondents for construction of granaries and godown for storing food items. It is stated that on the understanding with the then Ex-Minister, the land of the petitioner was used for construction of godown and granaries and on the promise of giving employment to one of the family members. Since no employment has been provided, the petitioner prays for returning the said land and the representation is pending before the authorities. [3] Mr. D. Julius Riamei, learned counsel for respondent No. 2/FCI, submits that the concerned godown is a State godown and the FCI has no connection with the present case and any instructions may be given to the State respondents. [4] Mr. Y. Ashang, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents, has no objection in disposing of the present writ petition by passing an innocuous order to consider the representation dated 05-06- 2025 submitted by the petitioner.
[5] Considering the submissions made at the Bar, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the State respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner and pass an appropriate order as per law within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. [6] With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. [7] It is made clear that this Court does not express any opinion on the merit of the case. JUDGE Victoria
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.