Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT KOHIMA BENCH
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
John Khriesaneihu and Others – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Nagaland and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 86 of 2018
Decided On : 08-04-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article, 226 – Power of High Courts to issue certain writs – Nagaland Eviction of Person in Unauthorized Occupation of Public Land Act, 1971 – Section 5 – By way of present writ petition petitioners challenge order whereby order of allotment of land in favour of predecessor in interest of petitioners was cancelled – Further challenge is eviction order – Petition was filed by predecessor in interest of present petitioners – As said petitioner died in meantime, the present petitioners were substituted in present proceeding as petitioners by this court by order passed in I.A – Held, This court cannot be oblivious of right of the respondent If his land/building has been taken by State, he needs to be compensated as per law – However, same cannot be at cost of the right of predecessor in interest of petitioners or by way of a proceeding not permitted under Law – Therefore, it is made clear that present order cannot be treated as determination of right and claim of contesting parties over disputed land and as such parties are at liberty, including respondent to agitate his right before competent forum/authority and State to proceed following due process of law, if they want to cancel patta issued in favour of predecessor in interest of petitioners, if law permits same – Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
1. Heard Mr. R. Iralu, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. L. Iralu, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. A. Ayemi, learned State counsel and Mr. Tongpok Pongener, learned counsel for the private respondent No. 4.
2. By way of the present writ petition the petitioners challenge the order dated 22.01.2014 whereby the order of allotment of land in favour of the predecessor in interest of the petitioners measuring 675 sq. ft. was cancelled. The further challenge is the eviction order dated 28.08.2014 and 20.09.2014. The petition was filed by the predecessor in interest of the present petitioners. As the said petitioner died in the meantime, the present petitioners were substituted in the present proceeding as petitioners by this court by order dated 13.12.2019 passed in I.A. No. 171/2019.
3. The brief facts in sequence on the basis of the pleading of the parties can be summarized as under:
(II) Subsequently, the petitioner was granted construction permission by the Deputy Commissioner and accordingly a kutcha house was constructed.
(III) It is the case of the petitioners that on the basis of the allotment order dated 15.02.1989, land patta was issued in favour of the predecessor in interest of the petitioners on 27.04.1991 being patta No. 2553 and plot No. 2040.
(IV) Thereafter, a plot of land belonging to the respondent No. 4 was sought to be used for traffic control room situated opposite to SKV Petrol Pump at Kohima and accordingly a proposal was initiated for allotment of Government quarter being quarter No. PWD/CH/58 in favour of the respondent No. 4.
(V) In the meeting of SLAA held on 23.10.2008 it was decided to see whether the said quarter is in the midst of other Government quarter or in an isolated location suitable for allotment to the respondent No. 4 and accordingly the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima along with W&H Department was directed to verify the same.
(VI) Thereafter, the Superintendent Engineer, PWD(H) submitted a report. The map annexed to the said report shows that the quarter No. 58 is bounded in north by quarter No. 59, in south by one private quarter, in West by another private quarter (of Mr. Kaikho Mao, the father of the present petitioners) and East by private quarter. Thereafter the Chief Engineer, PWD(H) by its communication dated 05.06.2009 addressed to the Commissioner & Secretary, W&H Department submitted the report.
(VII) On 31.08.2009, the old patta granted in favour of the predecessor in interest of the petitioners was renewed after payment of all pending land revenue and a new patta was issued being patta No. (new) 6271 and plot No. 2040.
(VIII) The Deputy Commissioner, Kohima by its communication dated 15.11.2009 addressed to the Secretary, Land and Revenue Department intimated that the quarter proposed to be allotted in favour of the respondent No. 4 at PWD colony is surrounded by private buildings, except a single Government quarter in its northern side.
(IX) The SLAA, in the meeting held on 07.09.2010 decided to allot quarter No. PWD/CH/58 in favour of the respondent No. 4 in lieu of traffic control room situated opposite SKV petrol pump.
(X) Thereafter the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima by allotment order dated 30.07.2011 allotted the Government quarter No. 58 with the land in favour of the respondent No. 4.
(XI) On the basis of an application filed by the respondent No. 4 alleging that the predecessor in interest of the petitioners started constructing a building on the Western portion of the land allotted to the respondent No. 4, the Deputy Commissioner by passed an order dated 04.01.2012 restraining the encroachers from further development.
(XII) On 04.09.2012, alleging that in spite of such restraint order the encroache
Equitable relief under writ jurisdiction is denied to petitioners who suppress material facts or lack clean hands. Administrative orders involving eviction from public premises warrant minimal judici....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that allotments obtained by misrepresentation or fraud can be cancelled without limitation, and such allotments do not confer any title over the pr....
The Court ruled that public authorities must provide reasons for their decisions, and failure to do so violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
A valid land allotment must be canceled before a subsequent allotment can be deemed lawful, reaffirming the plaintiffs' ownership rights and possession under the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms....
The cancellation of land allotment was invalid as the respondents failed to follow due process and were estopped from questioning the allotment after five years of acquiescence.
Mandatory prior approval from the Assistant Collector is essential for land allotments under Section 122-C of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, making unauthorized claims invalid.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and providing a reasonable opportunity for the parties to present their case.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
