Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Gau) 985

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH, COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(Principal Seat at Guwahati)
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
The State of Nagaland, represented by the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Land and Revenue and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Shri Vinoka Chishi, S/o. Shri Vitokhu Chishi and Ors. – Respondents
CRP No.104 Of 2024
Decided On : 27-05-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. K.N. Balgopal, Advocate General, Ms. T. Khro, Addl., Advocate General, Ms. M. Kechi, Addl. Advocate General.
For the Respondents:Mr. S. Dutta, Senior Advocate, Mr. A. Biswas, Mr. A. Das, Ms. P. Chetri.

Civil courts lack jurisdiction to entertain suits regarding public land occupation due to statutory bar; injunctive relief against eviction in infrastructure projects prohibited under Specific Relief Act.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 9 and 115 - Nagaland Eviction of Persons in Unauthorized Occupation of Public Land Act, 1971 - Revision petition against dismissal of civil appeal, upholding order granting temporary injunction against eviction of unauthorized occupiers - Appellate court found civil suit for eviction maintainable despite statutory bar - Legal principles clarified include jurisdictional limits of civil courts in matters involving public land. (Paras 4, 11, 14-24)

(B) Grant of injunction - Requirements - Injunction must not contravene statutory provisions, particularly in infrastructure projects - Sections 41(ha) of Specific Relief Act prohibits injunctive relief in ongoing infrastructure projects - Appeal court's finding deemed erroneous for ignoring legal mandates and misapplying principles of equitable relief. (Paras 19-29)

Facts of the case:
Dismissal of appeal by petitioners against temporary injunction in civil suit involving land claimed for public interest, where respondents claimed rights based on invalid transactions, ultimately deemed encroachers by state authority.

Findings of Court:
The Appellate Court upheld the injunction without just cause, misreading evidence presented; jurisdiction to entertain civil suit questioned as statutory provisions expressly bar such claims involving government-acquired land.

Issues: Whether the civil suit was maintainable in light of statutory bars, and if the grant of injunction was justified based on public interest and legal rights.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that injunctive relief cannot be issued where it conflicts with statutory provisions set for public land usage; jurisdictional overreach by civil courts highlighted.

Result: Revision petition Allowed; impugned orders set aside and injunction quashed.

Table of Content
1. the respondents established their legal claims over the land in question. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. the petitioners argued over jurisdictional issues and legal inaccuracies in previous rulings. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. the court emphasized public interest concerning infrastructure projects. (Para 12 , 13 , 18)
4. statutory provisions prevent granting of injunction against public infrastructure developments. (Para 19 , 20)
5. the court's decision mandated the quashing of previous injunction orders. (Para 29 , 30)

JUDGMENT :

(ROBIN PHUKAN, J.)

Heard Mr. K.N. Balgopal, learned Advocate General, Nagaland, assisted by Ms. T. Khro, learned Additional Advocate General and Ms. M. Kechi, learned Additional Advocate General for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Biswas for the respondent Nos. 1 to 13; Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the proforma respondent No. 14 and Ms. P. Chetri, learned counsel for the proforma respondent No. 15.

2. This revision petition, under Section 115 of the CPC, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order dated 29.09.2023, passed by the Principal District Judge, Dimapur, in Civil Appeal No. 24/2023.

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 29.09.2023, the learned Principal District Judge, Dimapur ('Appellate Court', for short) had dismissed the Civil Appeal No. 24/2023, preferred by the petitioners herein and hereby upheld the order, dated 22.11.2021, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dimapur ('Trial Court', for short) in I.A. (Civil) No. 224/2020, arising out of Civil Suit No. 14/2020, wherein the learned Trial Court had granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs, in respect of the land under Dag Nos. 38 and 40 of Diphupar area and restraining the petitioner/defendant No. 3 herein, from executing the eviction order dated 11.12.2020.

4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are briefly stated as under:

“The respondent Nos. 1 to 13 herein, as plaintiffs, had instituted a civil suit, being Civil Suit No. 14/2020, praying for a decree declaring the orders dated 30.11.2019 and 05.12.2019, as null and void; a decree declaring the eviction order dated 11.12.2020, as null and void and a decree declaring and directing the defendants/petitioners herein to properly and befittingly compensate the plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 to 13 herein, if the land of the plaintiffs is required for public interest. Along with the said suit, the respondent Nos. 1 to 13 had also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2 of the CPC, read with Part-VI, Section 94 of the CPC, upon which I.A.(Civil) No. 224/2020, praying for grant of injunction against the petitioners herein, not to disturb the peaceful possession of the land by the respondent Nos. 1 to 13.

The deceased husband of the proforma respondent No. 14, namely, Late V. Atoshe Sumi @ Hutoshe Sema is the original owner of the land belonging to the respondent Nos. 1 to 13 and they are the rightful owners and possessors of their respective plots of land which they had received by way of gifts and/or sale from proforma respondent No. 14 and are in possession of the same which is claimed by the petitioners herein. The respondent Nos. 1 to 13 have been enjoying the possession of their respective plots of land by way of transferring and mutating their names in the land records maintained by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, by issuing land pattas in connection with their respective plots of land.

It is the case of the respondent Nos. 1 to 13 that the husband of proforma respondent No. 14 had purchased a plot of land on the banks of the Diphupar river on 10.10.1991, from one Mr. Vizheto Sema, covered by Dag No. 38, Diphupar, measuring an area of 9‰ bighas for a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/-. Further, the husband of proforma respondent No. 14 on 09.09.1996, had purchased from Mr. Vizheto Sema, the adjoining plot of la