SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Gau) 808

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
L. S. JAMIR, J.
Phutovi Chishi & others – Appellant
vs
The State of Nagaland & others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 86 of 2011
Decided On 01-09-2014

Headnote:

Tenancy and Land Laws - Eviction orders – Tenant – Cancellation of mutation - Payment of Rent - Counsel for petitioners submits that present suit land was under occupation of one Smti. Jilaswar, prior to formation of Statehood of Nagaland - After formation of State of Nagaland, an order was issued allowing settlement of said plot of land in favour of said Smti. Jilaswar - Sometime in year 1978, the Department of Public Health Engineering decided to set up a water supply project and requested said Smti. Jilaswar to permit usage of a portion of her land for same - Said request was consented to by Smti. Jilaswar - However, project was abandoned and therefore portion of land allowed to the PHED was taken back of Smti. Jilaswar - In 1981, present petitioners occupied the land of said Smti. Jilaswar as tenants by way of payment of rent in suit land covered by Dag - Held, It is not a duration, short or long, of encroachment that is conclusive of the question whether the summary remedy prescribed by the Act can be put into operation for evicting a person - What is relevant for the decision of that question is more the nature of property on which encroachment is alleged to have been committed and consideration whether claim of occupant is bona fide - Facts which raise a bona fide dispute of title between Government and occupant must be adjudicated upon by ordinary Courts of law - Government cannot decide such questions unilaterally in its own favour and evict any person summarily on the basis of such decision - But duration of occupation is relevant in sense that a person who is in occupation of a property openly for an appreciable length of time can be taken, prima facie, to have a bona fide claim to property requiring an impartial adjudication according to established procedure of law - Therefore after Eviction Notice cancellation of mutation granted to petitioners by the order could not have been done without first hearing petitioners - Impugned eviction order and impugned cancellation order are both set aside and quashed - Writ petition is allowed.

ORDER :

” Heard Mr. I. Longjem, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mrs. Lucy, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents.

2. This writ petition is directed against the impugned individual Eviction orders all dated 1-4-2011 issued upon the petitioners by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, Nagaland and the order dated 20-4-2011 whereby the mutation granted to the petitioners were cancelled with effect from the date of the issue of the order.

3. Mr. I. Longjem, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present suit land was under the occupation of one Smti. Jilaswar, prior to the formation of the Statehood of Nagaland. After formation of the State of Nagaland, an order dated 27-1-1977 was issued allowing settlement of the said plot of land measuring about 25B-04K-5Ls in favour of the said Smti. Jilaswar. Sometime in the year 1978, the Department of Public Health Engineering decided to set up a water supply project and requested the said Smti. Jilaswar to permit usage of a portion of her land for the same. The said request was consented to by Smti. Jilaswar. However, the project was abandoned and therefore the portion of land allowed to the PHED was taken back of Smti. Jilaswar. In 1981, the present petitioners occupied the land of the said Smti. Jilaswar as tenants by way of payment of rent in the suit land covered by Dag No. 344.

4. Thereafter Smti. Jilaswar sold the suit land to the petitioners by way of executing a Sale-Deed in the year 1990. The said sale-deed was executed between Smti. Jilaswar and the petitioners in the name and style of Women Tillers Purana Bazar. Meanwhile, the Department of PHED again revived the water supply project in the year 1998. The concerned Minister therefore requested the petitioners for allowing the PHED department to set up the water supply project and accordingly on the basis of meeting held on 1-5-1998, it was agreed to allow some portion of their land adjoining the actual Raj Pukhuri for the use of the project. Again, the project could not take off and therefore the project was abandoned and the entire plant and machinery were also taken away and therefore, the petitioners reclaimed the lands given by them for the project.

5. The petitioners were served with a common notice dated 30-4-2008 by the Executive Engineer, (PHED) directing them to dismante the building erected by the petitioners within 15 days from the date of issue of the notice on the ground that such construction were made within Government land. The petitioners submitted their reply to the notice dated 30-4-2008. After the reply to the notice dated 30-4-2008, the officials of PHED had furnished the petitioners with a copy of Patta No. 1160, Dag Nos. 344/1727 and 345. The petitioners came to learn that the land under Dag No. 344 originally settled in favour of Smti. Jilaswar in the year 1977 was converted to the patta produced by the officials of PHED. Subsequently, separate show cause notice dated 3-7-2008 were issued to the petitioners by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur to show cause as to why they should not be evicted from illegal occupation of land under Dag No. 344/345 at Raj Pukhuri, Purana Bazar, Dimapur within 15 days. A joint reply was given by the petitioners to the show cause which was received by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur on 22-7-2008. Thereafter, no steps were taken by the respondents and the petitioners therefore considered the matter to be settled.

6. The petitioner in order to secure their land applied for mutation of their respective land and accordingly they were given their respective jamabandis which was issued by the competent authority (annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-I). However, the department of Land Revenue by a letter dated 28-2-2011 directed the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur to cancel the orders of land allotment made by the Department in the High School area of Purana Bazar, Raj Pukhuri in Dimapur as the same was without the formal app
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top