Sl. No. 10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL MC (W.A.) No. 118 of 2025 Meithuanlung Gangmei Applicant Vs. State of Manipur; & Ors. Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH (ORDER) (Order of the Court was made by M. Sundar, CJ) 17.11.2025 [1] Captioned Miscellaneous Case (MC) has been filed seeking third party leave to file an intra-court appeal, i.e., writ appeal assailing ‘order dated 03.10.2025 made by a Hon’ble Single Bench in W.P. (C) No. 742 of 2025’ (‘said WP order’) for convenience. [2] Mr. Mayonkui Ngalung, learned counsel for third-party leave applicant, i.e, petitioner in captioned MC is before this Court. [3] Short facts are that the subject matter is compensation award dated 16.06.2017 in a sum of a little over 7.41 crores (Rs. 7,41,51,854.80/- Rupees seven crore forty one lakh fifty one thousand eight hundred fifty four and eighty paise only, to be precise), which is compensation under ‘the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013’) {‘Fair Compensation Act’ for the sake of convenience}. This award dated 16.06.2017 shall be referred to as ‘said compensation award’ for the sake of convenience. One Khumba Lovejoy came to this Court vide W.P. KABORAMBA M SANDEEP SINGH Digitally signed by KABORAMBAM SANDEEP SINGH Date: 2025.11.18 10:44:18 +05'30' (C) No. 742 of 2025 (filing the same against the State) making a prayer for payment qua said compensation award. In this writ petition, in and vide said WP order, a Hon’ble Single Bench directed disbursement inter alia based on an order dated 01.03.2018 in Judl. Misc. Case 31 of 2017 made by District Judge Imphal West who is the competent authority under Fair Compensation Act, to be noted, in and by this order, the competent authority under Fair Compensation Act has clearly held that third party leave applicant, Mr. Meithuanlung Gangmei has failed to establish any prima facie right and title over the acquired lands. [4] Assailing the aforementioned 01.03.2018 order of the competent authority under Fair Compensation Act (District Judge, Imphal West), the third party leave applicant first preferred a CRP in this Court being CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 45 of 2025. In this CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 45 of 2025, on 19.09.2025, an interim order was granted vide MC [CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227)] No. 78 of 2025 (interim order interdicting disbursement order) but thereafter the third party applicant withdrew the CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 45 of 2025 on 17.10.2025 and this Court in the withdrawal order dated 17.10.2025 made it clear that the interim order granted on 19.09.2025 stands effaced, however, the rights of the third party applicant to file a fresh CRP were preserved and the third-party applicant has filed another CRP in CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 51 of 2025 and the same along with the MC thereat is pending. [5] There is no interim order in CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 51 of 2025. This CRP will proceed on its own merits and in accordance with law, untrammeled by instant order. [6] Be that as it may, pendency of aforementioned CRP is first reason as to why third-party leave prayer cannot be acceded to and second reason as to why third party leave cannot be granted is, a careful perusal of the said WP order makes it clear that writ petitioner thereat and private respondents thereat (respondent No. 3 & respondent No. 4 in the WP) have undertaken that claim of any interested party, if it arises in future, will be set satisfied by them i.e., by writ petitioner and respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4 in WP. [7] There is a third reason as to why third-party leave cannot be granted and that is, even according to third-party leave applicant, two title suits namely O.S. No. 24 of 2014/2 of 2025 and O.S. No. 6 of 2013/5 of 2014 are pending on the file of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Tamenglong and the third- party leave applicant is one of the defendants in both the suits. It is submitted by learned counsel for third-party leave applicant that both suits pertain to declaration of title qua lands which are subject matter of acquisition which has culminated in said compensation award which is the nucleus of the entire matter. [8] We make it clear that this order will neither impede nor serve as an impetus for any of the parties as regards the title suits and any interlocutory applications thereat. [9] In the light of the narrative thus fare, captioned MC is dismissed and there will be no order as to costs. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Sandeep