IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT KOHIMA BENCH
Soumitra Saikia, J.
Shri Honito Shohe Represented By Shri. Akhalu Achumi - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Nagaland, Represented By The Chief Secretary and ors. - Respondents
WP(C) of 167 No. 2023, I.A.(Civil)/116/2023
Decided On : 11-11-2024
(A) Assam Land Revenue Regulation, 1886 - Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities - The petitioner challenged the order directing him to vacate land, claiming prior regularization and possession since 1989. The court found that the Revenue-cum-Settlement Officer exceeded jurisdiction by deciding title issues, which are reserved for Civil Courts. (Paras 6, 14, 15)
(B) Jurisdictional Authority - Revenue Officers lack authority to adjudicate on land title disputes; such matters must be resolved by Civil Courts. (Paras 6, 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed possession of land since 1989, regularized in 2010, while the respondent No. 4 claimed ownership through a purchase in 1997. The Revenue Officer ordered the petitioner to vacate based on alleged illegal occupation.
Findings of Court:
The Revenue-cum-Settlement Officer's order was deemed beyond jurisdiction regarding title determination.
Issues: Whether the Revenue Authorities could decide on land title and possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that title disputes must be resolved by Civil Courts, not Revenue Authorities.
Result: Writ petition disposed of; parties to maintain status-quo for 45 days.
JUDGMENT :
Soumitra Saikia, J.
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. This Writ Petition is directed against the Order No. REV-02/2018- D/5273-77 dated 11.08.2023 passed by the Revenue-cum-Resettlement Officer, Dimapur, Nagaland, whereby the petitioner was directed to dismantle the kacha house constructed by his Attorney holder Shri Akhalu Achumi, vacate the premises and hand over the said land to the respondent No. 4, namely National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of India. The petitioner was directed to hand over the land free from all encumbrances within 14 (fourteen) days from the date of the receipt of the Order. This Court, by Order dated 22.08.2023 while issuing notice directed parties to maintain status-quo on the concerned land and further directed the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 not to take recourse to any action for cancellation of Patta No. 1683 Dag No. 19/1845 in Block No. 9, Mouza No. 2, measuring an area of 1 Bigha 2 Kathas 3 Lechas.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land has been in possession of the petitioner since 1989 and it was regularised in the year 2010, by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur by issuance of Jamabandi/Patta in favour of the petitioner. The land in question is covered by Patta No. 1683 Dag No. 19/1845 under Block No. 9, Mouza No. 2, Dimapur, measuring 1 Bigha 3 Kathas, which the petitioner claims had been under his possession since 1989 and which came to be regularized by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur by issuing of Jamabandi/Patta. It is submitted that while the petitioner was in peaceful possession of the said land, he appointed one Akhalu Achumi as his attorney as the petitioner originally belongs to Luthsumi Village in the district of Zunheboto in the state of Nagaland. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1989 the petitioner had cleared the jungle from the land in question and the said land was neither occupied nor was registered in the name of any person. At the relevant point in time an area near the concerned land in question was occupied by the GREF. The petitioner used to supply wood from the clearing of the jungle to the Assam Rifles Camp at 3rd Mile, Dimapur. As such, since 1989 the concerned land has been under the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner filed necessary applications for regularization and settlement before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, by Application dated 20.11.1992. Earlier, Dimapur was a sub-division and it came to be established as a District Headquarter only in 1997. In pursuance to the applications filed by the petitioner before Additional Deputy Commissioner for allotment of the land in question, the petitioner was informed by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner that there is a ban for allotment of land by the Government and the land therefore, could not be settled or regularized in his name till the ban is in force.
4. Subsequently, the petitioner renewed his prayer by filing separate applications. During the pendency of this application, the petitioner left Dimapur to return to his original village and put the land in the care of one person, namely Shri Pandey, who the petitioner appointed as caretaker in respect of the said land. Subsequently, the petitioner was informed sometime in the year 2008 that the caretaker was chased away from the land by some unknown persons. Returning back to the said land he found that the land was surrounded by a boundary wall with a gate. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner pursued his claim for regularization of the land in his name. The Office of the Deputy Commissioner issued Order No. REV-17/90-D/11212-15, dated 08.03.2010 by which the land was regularized in the name of the petitioner by the Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur. Thereafter the Jamabandi was also issued in the name of the petitioner for the land measuring 1 Bigha 3 Kathas under Patta No. 1683, Dag No. 19/1845, Block No. 9 and Mouza No. 2. The petitioner also paid the necessary Land
Legal heirs of Late C. Das vrs. Chairman, Assam Board
Dayal Hari Paul vrs. Pradip Kumar Lahkar
Revenue Authorities cannot adjudicate land title disputes; such matters must be resolved by Civil Courts under the Assam Land Revenue Regulation, 1886.
Only civil courts have jurisdiction to determine ownership and rights over land, while administrative authorities must adhere to the statutory framework, as established in this case.
The settlement granted to the petitioner association could not be cancelled unless found to have been contrary to the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886.
Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to determine land title disputes, which must be settled in civil courts, rendering related appeals maintainable under proper legal challenges.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and providing a reasonable opportunity for the parties to present their case.
The court's decision emphasized the need for convincing evidence to support allegations of forgery and illegal deprivation in land acquisition cases, and the requirement for a full-fledged trial for ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to principles of natural justice and the prescribed method and procedure when exercising statutory powers.
The court affirmed the eviction order but quashed the damages due to lack of conclusive evidence and procedural irregularities in the assessment of damages.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.