The substance of his companyplaint was that the Chief Commissioner had permitted by these orders, the settlement of part of the public Road on respondents 1 to 4, thereby preventing the petitioners free access to the public road from the adjoining land belonging to the petitioner on which his home stood was situated.
The Submission of Shri Goburdhun, learned Counsel for the appellant, was that the Judicial Commissioner acted entirely without jurisdiction in reviewing the order made by his preducessor.
The Writ petition was companytested on various grounds.
Pursuant to the certificate granted by the Judicial Commissioner this appeal has been filed.
The learned Judicial Commissioner who decided the W.P. was Shri Rajvi Roop Singh J.C. Thereafter, on 2 7 1965, respondents 1 to 4 filed an application for review purporting to be under Order 47, Rule 1 and Section 151, Civil Procedure Code.
By his judgment dated 25th May, 1965, the learned Judicial Commissioner allowed the Writ Petition on the ground that the settlement of land which was part of a public a Road was prohibited by the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 as well as the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1958.
The appellant sought and obtained a certificate under Article 133 1 c of the Constitution from Shri R S. Bindra, J.C. who succeeded Shri C. Jagannadhacharyulu as Judicial Commissioner.
The application for review was allowed, the earlier order dated 25th May, 1965, was set aside and the Writ petition was dismissed by Shri C. J. Jagannadhecharyulu, J.C. who succeeded Shri Rajvi Roop Singh as judicial Commissioner.
The first was that his predecessor had overlooked two important documents exhibits A/1 and A/3 which showed that the respondents were in possession of the sites even in the year 1948, 49 and that the grants must have been made even by them.
Chinnappa Reddy, J. The appellant filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Manipur, challenging the orders dated 11th August, 1961 30th September, 1961 of the Chief Commissioner of Manipur.
The Judicial Commissioner gave two reasons for reviewing his predecessors order.
In reviewing the earlier order, as he did, the Judicial Commissioner exercised appellate powers which he did number possess He was number entitled to sit in appeal over the judgment of his predecessor.
