Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 918
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT KOHIMA BENCH
MITALI THAKURIA, J.
Doshehe Y. Sema - Appellant
Versus
The State of Nagaland and Others - Respondents
C. Revision No. 6 of 2020
Decided On : 23-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : N.K. Luikham, C.D. Rungsung
The court emphasized that establishing a prima facie case is essential for a temporary injunction, alongside balance of convenience and likelihood of irreparable injury, which were not satisfied by the petitioner.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code - Order 39 Rule 1 - In a civil suit concerning land possession, the petitioner appealed against the appellate court's decision, which quashed the interim injunction order favoring the petitioner due to inconsistencies in land claims and lack of prima facie evidence. (Paras 2, 9, 20, 36)
(B) Temporary Injunction - Granting criteria includes establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to satisfy these criteria, leading the appellate court to correctly deny the injunction. (Paras 11, 37)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondent, claiming rights over land purchased in 1995, while the respondent contended ownership through subsequent transactions, resulting in disputes over land titles and possession. (Paras 4, 31)
Findings of Court:
The court reiterated that discrepancies in land records undermine the petitioner's claim and concluded that the petitioner could not establish a prima facie case against the respondent's established claims. (Paras 36, 41)
Issues: Whether the petitioner could establish a prima facie case for the injunction against the respondent’s claim, given the inconsistencies in land documents and the prior decision by revenue authorities. (Paras 9, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that granting a temporary injunction requires the petitioner to demonstrate convincingly a prima facie case; the inconsistencies in claims and documents undermined the petitioner's position, justifying the appellate court's findings. (Paras 39, 42)
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. a petition under article 227 addresses the quashing of an adverse order from a lower court. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. right to possession of land. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. details the history of land ownership and disputes leading to the current appeal. (Para 6) |
| 4. inconsistencies in documentation impact claims. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 5. emphasizes the role of prima facie assessment in injunction cases and the balance of convenience. (Para 8 , 36) |
| 6. injunctions need solid grounds based on prima facie. (Para 10 , 28 , 31) |
| 7. appellate discretion in injunction cases. (Para 12 , 17 , 41) |
| 8. claims of land ownership require clear documentation. (Para 20 , 24) |
| 9. final determination lacks merit for interference with the appellate court's decision. (Para 39 , 42) |
JUDGMENT :
MITALI THAKURIA, J.
1. Heard Mr. N. K. Luikham, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Additional Advocate General, representing the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Mr. Imti. Longjem, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
2. This application is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for the quashing and setting aside of the impugned order dated 02.12.2020, passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dimapur, in Civil Appeal No. 01/2020, and for the restoration of the order dated 13.02.2020 in IA (C) No. 98/2019, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dimapur.
3. The case, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner herein, as plaintiff, filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 5/2019 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dimapur, Nagaland, against the present respondent No. 3/defendant, praying for a declaration and reconfirmation of his right, title, interest, and possession over the suit land. He also sought for setting aside of the order dated 19.09.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur (in short ‘DC’), and prayed for a permanent injunction restraining respondent No. 3/defendant No. 3 and his agents from interfering with the petitioner’s possession of the suit land. It is further the case of the petitioner that he purchased the said plot of land in the year 1995, ½ specifically, a plot measuring 04B-04K-03 Ls under Dag No. 98 and 01B- 03L-09Ls under Dag No. 113 of Block No. 3, Dimapur Town, covered by Patta No. 64, from the landowner Smti. Meithanlu Rongmei, through a registered Sale Deed No. 84/95 dated 31.05.1995. He also obtained mutation over the said plot of land. The land was further demarcated by the ADC, Dimapur. Subsequently, the petitioner filed another representation for further demarcation of the aforesaid land, and accordingly, vide letter dated 15.10.1998, the DC directed the Land Records & Survey Officer (in short ‘LRSO’), Dimapur, to demarcate the land at Block No. 3 under Dag Nos. 98 and 113. The Surveyor accordingly submitted a spot verification report on 15.04.1999, wherein it was ascertained that one Shri Gaidibung had wrongly occupied a portion of the land under Dag No. 113. Consequently, the DC passed an order dated 13.05.1999, directing Shri Gaidibung to occupy only the area allotted to him and to vacate the encroached portion under Dag No. 113.
4. However, in February 2016, respondent No. 3 began digging on a portion of land illegally under Dag No. 113. The petitioner filed a complaint on 18.02.2016, and accordingly, a restraining order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, on 19.02.2016. The DC also directed the LRSO, Dimapur, to carry out a joint spot verification on 07.10.2016, which could not be completed due to the absence of one of the parties. Eventually, a spot verification report was submitted by the LRSO on 28.11.2017. It is further stated that the petitioner/plaintiff has been in continuous possession and occupation of the disputed land under Dag No. 113, and at no point in time did respondent No. 3 own or possess the said disputed land. The petitioner also applied for mutation before the DC vide letter dated 15.08.1998, over a portion of land
