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

2023 Supreme(Gau) 433

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH, KOHIMA BENCH
KAKHETO SEMA, J.
Shri. Thejangulie Kachari, S/o. Lt. Bijoy Kachari - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Nagaland represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Kohima & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 357 of 2021
Decided On : 04-04-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Z. Zhimomi, Mr. Toshi-o Longkumer, Ms. S.K. Achumi.
For the Respondents: Ms. V. Suokhrie, Addl. Adv. General, Mr. N. Mozhui, Ms. K. Kire, Ms. N. Rupreo, Mr. P. Mere.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226/227 – Land – Heir - Lease deed - Petitioner is son of late and grandson of late - Petitioner’s grandfather, had three sons - Eldest son expired on, second son expired and third son expired - It is case of petitioner that presently he is only surviving heir of and therefore entitled to inherit land/properties lawfully belonging to family- That by order dated, issued by, then Deputy Commissioner, was allowed to cultivate 10(ten) acres of land in Dag No. 1 - On the death, land belonging to deceased was inherited by his son who was issued - Dag No. 31 carried 22B-0K-0Ls of land while Dag No. 21 carried 08B-01K-05Ls of land - Present dispute pertains to land in Dag No. 31 but not land under Dag No. 21- That from Dag No. 31, a portion of land measuring 350 ft. to North, 355 ft. to south, 340 ft. to east and 347 ft. to west was leased out, father-in-law of respondent No.4 by executing lease deed dated - Whether hume pipe factory is located on land carried in Dag No. 31 or partly under Dag No. 31 and partly under Dag No. 19 can only be established by parties after leading proper evidence – Held, It is settled law that revenue courts while deciding rival claims of parties in mutation proceedings does not possess the jurisdiction to decide ownership claims of any party on a particular land - Jurisdiction to decide ownership issue in relation to any immovable property is with civil court - In substance therefore, revenue court could not decide rival ownership claims of the parties over land and had to grant liberty to parties concern to get their claim adjudicated by Civil Court in a civil suit - Court while not interfering with order dated passed by Deputy Commissioner, grants liberty to petitioner to approach competent Civil Court for redressal of his grievances, if any, if so advised - All contentious issues raised by parties in support of their case shall be adjudicated by competent Civil Court in accordance with law - Writ petition disposed.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. Z. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State respondents. Also heard Mr. N. Mozhui, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated 23/11/2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, dismissing the claim made by the petitioner on the land covered by Dag No. 31, Block No. 8 in Dimapur Mouza, and directing the petitioner not to disturb the peaceful occupation of the land by the respondent No.4.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is recited as under;

    (i) The petitioner is the son of late Bijoy Kachari and the grandson of late Jai Kisar Kachari. The petitioner’s grandfather, Jai Kisar Kachari had three sons namely, Arun Kachari, Bijoy Kachari & Komal Kachari. The eldest son Arun Kachari expired on 29/05/1986, the second son Bijoy Kachari expired on 29/06/2012 and the third son Komal Kachari expired on 16/04/2021. It is the case of the petitioner that presently he is the only surviving heir of late Jai Kisar Kachari and therefore entitled to inherit the land/properties lawfully belonging to the family.

(ii) That by the order dated 17/12/1947, issued by C.R. Pawsey, the then Deputy Commissioner, Naga Hills, Shri Jai Kisar Kachari was allowed to cultivate 10(ten) acres of land in Dag No. 1 of Urla Bengali Goan under Dimapur Mouza. On the death of Jai Kisar Kachari, the land belonging to the deceased was inherited by his son Arun Kachari who was issued with the Patta No.6, Dag No. 31 and Dag No. 21 in Block No. 8 of Dimapur town on 01/08/1969. Dag No. 31 carried 22B-0K-0Ls of land while Dag No. 21 carried 08B-01K-05Ls of land. The present dispute pertains to the land in Dag No. 31 but not the land under Dag No. 21.

(iii) That from Dag No. 31, a portion of the land measuring 350 ft. to the North, 355 ft. to the south, 340 ft. to the east and 347 ft. to the west was leased out by Arun Kachari to Shri. Pannalal Shetti, the father-in-law of the respondent No.4 by executing the lease deed dated 17/10/1971 and pursuant to which Shri Pannalal Shetti has set up the hume pipe factory on the leased land. The lease deed was however partially damaged by a devastating fire which broke out in Signal Basti/Kevijau colony on 14/04/1990.

(iv) That by the sale deed dated 05/04/1980 which was registered only on 05/05/1983, Arun Kachari sold 03B-04K-09Ls of land in Dag No. 31 to the respondent No. 4. The said respondent was accordingly allotted Dag No. 31/122 for the said land.

(v) That after the death of Arun Kachari, the land measuring 18B-0K-11Ls under Dag No. 31 was mutated and transferred to Smti. Theketuo Kachari w/o Arun Kachari. By the gift deed dated 12/10/1996 Smti. Theketuo Kachari, transferred 05B-0K-19Ls of land to the petitioner. The Patta No. 306, Dag No. 390/31 carrying 05B-0K-19Ls of land was accordingly issued to the petitioner.

(vi) That Smti Theketuo Kachari and the petitioner thereafter applied for the demarcation of their land under Dag No. 31 and pursuant to which a spot verification of the land was conducted and the report was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur/respondent No.3 on 19/05/2015. The report stated that the land proposed for demarcation falls under Dag No. 19 and Dag No. 31 in Block No. 8 and is not under the physical occupation of the applicants (i.e. Smti Theketuo Kachari/petitioner) but occupied by the respondent No.4 by running a hume pipe factory. Smti. Theketuo Kachari in the meantime expired in the month of January, 2016.

(vii) That on the insistence of the petitioner, the land was re-surveyed again on 09/07/2017 and ascertained that the land falls under Dag No. 19 and Dag No.31, in Block No. 8 of Dimapur town. Dag No. 19 carried 10B-0K-00Ls of land while Dag No. 31 carried 03B-04K-09Ls of land. The report accordingly stated that the total area of the land measuring 13B-04K-09Ls was under the occupation of the respondent No.4 by running

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