A permit granted for cultivation constitutes a personal, non-heritable license that confers no proprietary interest or title in land. Such a permit terminates upon the death of the grantee and cannot be inherited or transformed into permanent ownership, preventing claims of title in writ proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J.

This common judgment is passed in respect of WP(C)/207/2016, WP(C)/58/2017 and WP(C)/88/2022 as all the three petitions are arising out of the same facts and circumstances.

2. WP(C)/88/2022 has been preferred by the petitioner praying for quashing and setting aside the Special Enquiry Report dated 31.10.2014, the impugned Order dated 24.09.2018 and the impugned Letter dated 25.01.2020. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the State respondents to pay land compensation to the petitioner for the area of land covered by the 111 Nos. of allotments issued to settlers on the petitioner’s special permit land by the district administration and further to direct the State respondents not to encroach on his land and desist from issuing any more allotments on the land covered by the Special Permit dated 29.03.1971.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tongpok Pongener as well as Senior Government Advocate, Mr. N. Angami and also Mr. N. Mozhui for the respondent no. 5 in WP(C)/88/2022 and Ms. Apila Sangtam, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 in WP(C)/58/2017.

4.The facts of the case in WP(C)/88/2022 as brought out in the pleadings of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s late father, L. Wangshu Konyak, had been given a Special Permit for farm land at Tizit vide MEMO: No. 8487-90 dated 29.03.1971. The petitioner’s father expired in the year 1974 leaving the petitioner a minor at that point of time. Taking advantage of the petitioner’s minority, some people tried to encroach into the land covered by the Special Permit and the district administration evicted them by issuing a Memorandum dated 11.04.1975 upholding the Special Permit issued to the petitioner’s father.

5. It is stated that with the passage of time, without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner, the district administration started issuing allotments to government departments and private individuals on his land and as the district administration remained silent to the objections raised by the petitioner through various representations, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland. Taking cognizance of the petitioner’s representation, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland issued an Order dated 18.07.1996 highlighting the fact that the Special Permit for farmland at Tizit was issued to the petitioner’s father in recognition of the assistance he had rendered to the administration and also for standing by the people in times of difficulty and that without his or his successor’s consent, no land should have been allotted to any person or the government offices. The letter further stated that the administration should always honor the commitment given by previous administrations in order to keep its image in the eye of the people and thereby directed the district administration Mon/Tizit to conduct a special enquiry and submit a detailed report.

6. The district administration failed to take any action on the Letter dated 18.07.1996, issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland. The petitioner therefore filed a writ petition, i.e., WP(C)/204(K)/2012, which was disposed of by Judgment and Order dated 05.08.2014 with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Mon to hold a special enquiry as was directed by the Chief Secretary by Order dated 18.07.1996, within a period of three months and to forward the report to the Chief Secre