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

2025 Supreme(Gau) 463

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
Budi Habung, J.
Kiyeshe Zhimomi R/o Sheyipu Village - Appellant 
Vs.
State Of Nagaland And Ors. - Respondent 
WP(C)/131/2020
Decided On : 17-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : A. ZHIMOMI, ESTHER,IMTI LONGJEM,JOSHUA SHEQI,LHOUSINO,IMTI LONGJEM
For the Respondent: GOVT ADV NL (R/1-4)

The State must follow statutory procedures for land acquisition; failure to do so renders the acquisition illegal and void ab initio.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Nagaland (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965 - Writ petition seeking directions for land acquisition and payment of rent - Petitioner constructed barracks for police in 1979; land later occupied by BSNL without proper acquisition - Court directed the State to complete acquisition process and address rent claims within six months. (Paras 2, 12, 33)

(B) Legal Acquisition Process - The State must follow statutory procedures for land acquisition; failure to do so renders the acquisition illegal and void ab initio. (Paras 15, 32)

(C) Adverse Possession - The State cannot claim land through adverse possession without legal sanction; rights must be established through proper acquisition. (Paras 16, 22)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner constructed police barracks on his land in 1979 at the request of the District Administration. The land was later occupied by BSNL for public use without proper acquisition, leading to the petitioner's claims for rent and acquisition. (Paras 3, 4, 12)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the State had not followed the legal process for land acquisition and directed the completion of this process and the examination of the petitioner’s rent claims. (Paras 33)

Issues: The main issues were whether the State had legally acquired the petitioner’s land and whether the petitioner was entitled to rent for its use since 1979. (Paras 12, 33)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the State must adhere to the statutory requirements for land acquisition, and any failure to do so invalidates the acquisition. The burden of proof lies with the State to demonstrate proper acquisition. (Paras 15, 32)

Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions to the State to complete acquisition and address rent claims.

Judgment and Order :

Heard Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. E. Thiba Phom, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and Mr. Y.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5.

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following directions to the respondents:

a. To acquire the plot/land of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Nagaland (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965;and

b. To pay the petitioner rent for his plot/land from 1979 to date, with interest.

3. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are that, sometime in 1979-80, due to emergent circumstances and at the request of the District Administration, the petitioner constructed 28 barracks for police personnel on his plot at Old Town, Zunheboto. Subsequently, a portion of the land was converted into a park.

4. However, the park was later relocated. The petitioner was informed that the land would be used by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) for setting up their office, which was said to be in the public interest. The petitioner was assured that arrangements would be made to his satisfaction.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner met with respondent No. 4 on several occasions to request appropriate action. He was advised to wait and was assured that his grievances would be addressed. However, no action was taken as promised. Instead, BSNL began developmental work on the plot. Consequently, the petitioner submitted a written complaint to the District Administration. Upon receiving this complaint, the District Administration issued Order No. dev-54/2000 dated 29.11.2000, restraining BSNL from continuing construction work.

6. As no response was forthcoming, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 20.06.2019 to BSNL, requesting compensation for the land of the Microwave Office, Zunheboto, Nagaland. In response, BSNL (respondent No. 5) informed the petitioner that an amount of Rs. 58,894 had been paid to the Deputy Commissioner and that the land in question had been allotted to BSNL. The letter enclosed a land allotment order bearing No. LR/TC-2/79 dated 10.08.1981. According to the petitioner, this letter contradicts BSNL's claim, stating that the sum of Rs. 58,894 is for the cost of the buildings on the land and not for the land itself. The petitioner also did not receive any payment from the District Administration.

7. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 28.06.2019 to the State respondents, pointing out that he had not been paid any rent for the use of his plot since 1979-80. He also noted that the prescribed process for taking over the land for public purposes had not been initiated and requested due process for acquiring his land and for compensation, along with a reasonable mesne profit from 1979-80 to date.

8. These representations led to letters addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto, by the Under Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, requesting clarification regarding the petitioner’s plot and a detailed explanation of the matter. The Sub-Divisional Officer (C) Sardar, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto, also wrote a letter dated 08.08.2019 to the SDE (BSNL), Zunheboto, requesting for any available documents regarding the land occupied by BSNL.

9. In response to the letter dated 08.08.2019, BSNL, by letter No. BP-2002/Land & Building/PLG/PT-II/2019/58 dated 30.08.2019, provided documents in their possession. This letter included an agreement indicating that the petitioner’s plot, measuring 200 x 200 feet, was allotted on lease, with rent set at Rs. 60 per acre per year.

10. Following this, the petitioner’s plot was surveyed, and by letter No. LRSO/Z/TECH-8/2004 dated 27.09.2019, the survey report was submitted. The report indicated that the petitioner’s plot, measuring 2409 sqm (25,932 sq. ft.), is under the occupation of BSNL.

11. Subsequently, the District Land Settlemen

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

AI

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