Back
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
KAKHETO SEMA
Gauhati High Court Represented By The Registrar Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench – Appellant
Versus
T. Akumba Yimchunger S/o R. Tohanba Yimchunger – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(KAKHETO SEMA, J.)
Heard Mr.A. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Imti Imsong, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State respondents and Ms.Nuksungtila, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1/petitioner.
2. The facts of the case as projected by the opposite party No.1/writ petitioner in the writ petition is that the petitioner is the owner of a plot of land situated in Ward No. 16, New Minister’s Hill, Kohima, Nagaland. The petitioner resides in House No. C/109 on the said land.
3. That the petitioner brought the land in the year 2010 from one Kevikhelie Sorhie of Kohima Village. The petitioner thereafter applied for the land patta and the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima, after following the due procedure issued the Patta No. (New) 8161, Plot No. 5414 vide Allotment Order No. REV/PATTA-2/2012 dated 30/06/2014 at New Minister’s Hill Kohima, for the land measuring 11517 sq. ft.
4. That out of the land allotted to the petitioner a portion of the land measuring 3120 sq. ft. was gifted to one Shri. P. Shokum Yimchunger, the petitioner’s maternal uncle, by executing the gifted deed dated
Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India is mandatory, leading to the automatic vacation of interim orders if not disposed of within two weeks.
Interim orders extended in the presence of parties cannot be vacated automatically under Article 226(3) without a hearing on merit.
The mandatory nature of Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India and the need to prevent abuse of interim orders.
Ex parte ad-interim relief under Article 226(3) vacates automatically after two weeks if not adjudicated, irrespective of parties' actions, ensuring prompt resolutions.
The Court ruled that public authorities must provide reasons for their decisions, and failure to do so violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Ravish Agrawal, Sanjay Agrawal For the Respondent : Pushpendra Yadav, R. N. Singh, Akshay Pawar
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
