[1] Heard Mr. P. Tomcha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Mr. M. Rarry, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State respondents; Mr. Ch. Ngongo, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and Ms. G. Pushpa, learned counsel for respondent No. 5.

[2] The prayers in the writ petition are as follows :

"(i) to issue a writ of Mandamus, or Certiorari or such other proper writ, order or orders to quash the notification dated 7.10.2000 of the respondent No. 4 (Annexure-A/5), for the ends of justice and of equity;

(ii) to issue a writ of Mandamus, or Certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or orders or direct the respondents No. 1 to 3 to initiate proper action to modify the order dated 26-9-2000 (Annexure-A/4) of the respondent No. 1 to the following extent :-

a. the area of the Lainingthou Sanamahi Laikon covered by the order in the Annexure-A/4 be corrected to 4.10 acres;

b. the recording of Respondent No. 5 as Administrator/Shebait be quashed and the name of the writ petitioner deity represented by its Lai Shellungba/Shebait be recorded as the owner/occupier of the land; for the ends of justice and of equity.

(iii) to issue a writ of Mandamus, or Certiorari or such other proper writ, order or orders to direct the respondents to initiate necessary investigation/inquiry regarding the observation made in the order in Annexure-A/4 that the respondent No. 5 is actually undertaking construction of the development works in the area of Lainingthou Sanamahi Laikon Wangoi and to take up necessary legal action, for the ends of justice and of equity;

(iv) to issue a writ of Mandamus, or Certiorari or such other proper writ, order or orders to direct the respondents No. 1 to 3 to initiate necessary actions to :

a. determine the ownership of the land under Rule 7 of the Rules.

b. cause demarcation of the Site under Rule 5 of the Rules; and

c. to initiate such other proper actions under the and Rules for proper preservation and management of the protected area and protected monuments; for the ends of justice and of equity"

[3] It is stated that the petitioner No. 1 is the Lai Sanamahi Devata represented by its priest, Lai Shellungba/Shebait, and the petitioner No. 2 is a registered society.

[4] At the outset, it is to be mentioned that the petitioner No. 1/Lai Shellungba, who presently claims that he is doing the puja of the deity, has not filed any record to show that he is the Lai Shellungba/Shebait either on the basis of his claim that he has been appointed by the Maharaja of Manipur, or his predecessor were appointed by the Maharaja in the year 1953 and thereafter. The petitioner No. 2 also has not furnished his Registration Certificate and has also not filed details of the activities of the society to consider the present plea on the affairs of the deity, namely, Lai Sanamahi Devata of Wangoi Village.

[5] (Annexure-A/5) is the notification dated 07.10.2005 issued by respondent No. 4, declaring the land covered by C.S. Dag No. 545/573 measuring an area of 3.10 acres as scheme area for development of Lainingthou Sanamahi, Wangoi, which reads as follows :

"GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR

SECRETARIAT : MAHUD DEPARTMENT

----------

NOTIFICATION

Imphal, the 7th October, 2000

No. 4/176/2000-PDA. It is hereby notified under Sub-Section (1) of Section 29 of the Manipur Town & Country Planning Act, 1975 that the Planning & Development Authority, Manipur has declared the land covered by C.S. Dag No. 545/573 measuring an area of 3.10 acre of Village No. 87 Wangoi as scheme area for development of Lainingthou Sanamahi, Wangoi.

Sd/-

(S. Kunjabihari Singh)

Secretary,

Planning & Development Authority

[6] Prior to that order, an order was passed by the Commissioner (Arts & Culture), Government of Manipur on 26.09.2000 (Annexure-A/4) recognizing respondent No. 5, a trust, to administer the protected the monument which also houses the Deity in question. Relevant Para 4 & 5 read as follows:

"4. And whereas, Wangoi Laipham Lainingthou Sanamahi Development Trust, a registered body under Regd. No. 66/IW/SR/1999 which is the present Administrator/Sevait has claimed that the name of the organization should be entered below the Remarks column of the Schedule particulars of the Historical Monumennt Site, and whereas he said orgainsation is actually undertaking construction or development works in the area of Lainingthou Sanamahi Laikon, Wangoi.

5. Now, therefore, under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Manipur Ancient & Historical Monuments & Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1976, the Governor of Manipur is pleased to declare the monuments of Lainingthou Snamahi Laikon, Wangoi and its surrounding area shown in the Schedule as protected Monument and protected area respectively in public interest. Further, the Governor of Manipur is pleased to order that the name of Wangoi Laipham Lainingthou Sanamahi Development Trust shall be entered in the Schedule particulars the Administrator/Sevaits."

[7] The cause of action for filing the writ petition is a complaint by the petitioner No. 2 to the Secretary, Arts and Culture, Government of Manipur, on 25.01.2000 (Annexure-A/3). The sum and substance of the complaint is that the Maharaja appointed the priest, Lai Shellungba in the year 1953, and thereafter. And without following the procedure, the official respondents have handed over the extent of land to respondent No. 5 for development of the deity which is contrary to law.

[8] Mr. M. Rarry, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, Mr. Ch. Ngongo, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 and Ms. G. Pushpa, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 unanimously oppose the writ petition stating that identity of the petitioner No. 1 & 2 is itself doubtful as no record has been produced to show their identity. Even otherwise, respondent No. 5, the trust, has been entrusted the role of administering the ancient protected monument and the deity, and the official respondents have only earmarked certain extent of land for development of the ancient monument. It is nowhere stated that the existing structure will be tampered with or modified in any manner that may affect its original design or structure.

[9] It is also pleaded by all the counsel for all the respondents that all steps required under the law to protect the ancient monument and permission that is required from the competent authority to manage and maintain the ancient monument, will be taken at appropriate stage by following the procedure and at no point of time, damage of any kind will be caused to the protected monument. This statement is recorded on behalf of the respondents.

[10] Furthermore, Ms. G. Pushpa, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 pointed out that there is another priest, Lai Shellungba appointed by the Head Pandit, Govinda Temple Board, Manipur who is presently taking care of the deity.

[11] These are all facts in dispute which either side is alleging against the other. On the face of (Annexure-A/4) and (Annexure-A/5), the right to protect the ancient monument has been given to respondent No. 5, the trust. As to the scheme area is concerned, it does not in any way state that the temple will be destroyed and demolished for construction of a new temple. All that it says is that for the development of temple premises, the land is demarcated. There cannot be any objection by anybody that an ancient monument is protected by law.

[12] On the question as to whether petitioner No. 1/Lai Shellungba, will be lawfully entitled to continue as Lai Shellungba and whether he has right to interfere in the affair can be decided by the Secretary, Arts and Culture, Government of Manipur, and Superintendent of Archaeology, Government of Manipur, to whom representations dated 06.02.2003 (Annexure-A/6 (Colly)) has been submitted.

[13] In view of the various complaints, respondent No. 1 & 2 shall hold an enquiry in terms of the representations dated 06.02.2003 (Annexure- A/6 (Colly)). It is needless to state that in the course of enquiry to be undertaken, notices to respondent No.5 and to such other departments and persons who may be necessary parties to this issue be compulsorily issued, so that there is no allegation of violation of principle of natural justice.

[14] The Secretary, Arts and Culture, Government of Manipur in consultation with the Superintendent of Archeology, Government of Manipur, shall decide the issue on disputed facts raised by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible.

Any relief as sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted at this stage.

[15] Writ petition stands disposed of as above.