IMPORTANT POINT
The Court ruled that public authorities must provide reasons for their decisions, and failure to do so violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. V. Therie, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mr. V. Zhimomi, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

2. The instant proceedings have been initiated by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 07.10.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, Nagaland whereby the Petitioners were directed to vacate the possession over the land as specifically described in the Schedule to the order (for the sake of convenience ‘the land in question’) within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the said order and further observing that in the case, the Petitioners fail to comply with the directions, it would entail physical eviction by using necessary force.

3. The legality of the said order dated 07.10.2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned order’) had been questioned by the Petitioners on the ground that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind, violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the impugned order was unreasonable and arbitrary and consequently in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

4. For appreciating the dispute involved in the instant proceedings, it is relevant to take note of the facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition.

5. The Petitioners herein claim to be the absolute owners of a plot of land admeasuring 0 Bigha 1 Katha 10 Lechas covered by Dag No.1259/1602 under Patta No. 1309 at Dimapur under Block No. 6 and Mouza No. 1. The Petitioners claimed that the ownership over the land in question was obtained on the basis of a Registered Deed of Sale executed by one Shri Phushika Awomi dated 10.10.2011 in favour of the Petitioner No.2. It is the further case of the Petitioners that pursuant thereto, the Petitioner No.2 was issued a Patta by the Revenue-cum-Settlement Officer, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur as well as also given a Land Revenue Clearance Certificate in respect to the land in question. The Petitioners avers that neither the Patta nor the Land Clearance Certificate were cancelled as they are still in force.

6. Be that as it may, the Respondent No.2 had issued a notice under Section 5(1) of the Nagaland Eviction of Persons in Unauthorized Occupation of Public Land Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act the 1971’) on 21.05.2012 asking the Petitioner No.1 to show cause as to why she should not be evicted in view of the fact that the Petitioner No.1 was occupying a public land belonging to the Medical Department of the Government of Nagaland.

7. Upon receipt of the said notice, the Petitioner No.1 submitted a detailed reply on 04.06.2012 stating inter alia that the land was purchased by the Petitioner No.2 on the basis of a registered Deed of Sale dated 10.10.2011 from Mr. Phushika Awomi and thereupon, the Petitioner No.2 had been issued the patta as well as the Land Revenue Clearance Certificate. It was further mentioned that the proceedings so initiated under the Act of 1971 was totally misconceived inasmuch as the land in question was not a public land within the meaning of the Act of 1971 and accordingly requested the Respondent No.2 to drop the said proceedings.

8. Pursuant to the said reply so submitted, after 2 years therefrom, an order was passed on 07.11.2014 by the Respondent No.2 in exercise of the powers under Section 6 of the Act of 1971 read with Rule 165 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (for short ‘the Regulation’) thereby directing the Petitioner No.1 to vacate the said plot of land after removing all structures or properties thereof within 15 days from the date of publication of the said order.

9. The Petitioners upon receipt of the said order dated 07.11.2014 submitted a reply dated 17.11.2014 again reiterating their contentions as stated in the earlier reply dated 04.06.2012. Subsequent thereto, after a lapse of 6 years, on 07.10.2020, the impugned