Back
2026 Supreme(Gau) 781
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Tindu Chader Son of Late Tayu Chader - Appellant
Versus
The State of AP and Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No.206 of 2025
Decided On : 25-05-2026
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. D. Kamduk
For the Respondent:Ms. G. Ete, Add. Senior Government Advocate
Writ jurisdiction cannot authoritatively determine contested land title without sufficient evidence; however, administrative authorities must objectively verify conflicting ownership claims through formal procedure before initiating permanent construction on land subject to unresolved proprietary disputes.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Land ownership dispute - Burden of proof on claimant to establish title - State construction on disputed land - Requirement to verify title claims before proceeding with construction - If land is found to be private, it must be acquired according to law. (Paragraphs 14, 15)
(B) Administrative Law - Land tenure and usage - Absence of documentary proof - In cases where claims of private ownership are contested by historical evidence of land donation for public utility, authorities are mandated to conduct a formal verification of the claim before authorizing development projects to ensure adherence to due process. (Paragraphs 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an administrative order to construct a permanent office building on a parcel of land. The petitioner asserted the land was private property provided temporarily for governmental use, whereas the responding authorities contended it was ancestral donation land used for public purposes for over six decades.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide definitive documentary evidence of private title, while counter-evidence suggested the land had been historically donated. Given the sensitive nature of the governmental infrastructure, the court directed the authorities to conduct a formal verification of the representation before proceeding with construction.
Issues: Whether the government can proceed with the construction of permanent infrastructure on land subject to a disputed ownership claim, and whether the authorities are obligated to verify such claims before development.
Ratio Decidendi: When a dispute arises regarding land ownership in the context of government infrastructure projects, the authorities must verify the veracity of the claim based on evidence. If the land is substantiated as private property, the state must initiate formal acquisition proceedings under the law.
Result: Petition disposed of, directing the authorities to conduct a verification process and decide the matter in accordance with the law.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishing the factual matrix and the nature of the dispute involving private land and governmental infrastructure. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. conflict between private ownership assertion and state-claim of donated land without documentary evidence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. judicial assessment of evidentiary gaps and the importance of public infrastructure in border regions. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. necessity of documentation to prove land ownership and mandate for verification prior to government construction. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT & ORDER :
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Heard Mr. D. Kamduk, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for all the respondents.
2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Order No. TKG/JUD-02/2023-24, dated 23.04.2025; issued by the Circle Officer, Taksing; whereby, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Nacho Division, was directed to demolish the old Circle Office building and construct a permanent RCC building for the Circle Office, in the private land of the petitioner; and the petitioner has also prayed for issuing direction not to conduct verification and demarcation of land for development of new Circle Headquarter, in terms of the minutes of the meeting, dated 05.03.2025 and 05.05.2025; singed by the Circle Officer, Taksing.
Background facts :-
3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are briefly stated as under -
“The petitioner herein has inherited a vast parcel of land at Taksing, and during the year 2001, the respondent authorities had approached the petitioner for lending some portion of his private land, for the purpose of establishment of Circle Office at Taksing, on temporary basis; and on agreement with the petitioner, a wooden type building for the Circle Office, Taksing, was constructed. The portion of land, where the Circle Office in presently situated, was neither acquired by the government nor donated to the government by the petitioner and the same is apparent from the minutes of meeting, dated 05.03.2025 and 05.05.2025.
Thereafter, the Circle Officer, Taksing, vide order, dated 23.04.2025, in most illegal and arbitrary manner, had passed an order, directing the Executive Engineer, PWD, Nacho Division, for dismantling the old Circle Office building and constructing a new permanent building upon the same plot of land, which originally belongs to the petitioner. Then, being aggrieved, the petitioner had filed one representation on 28.04.2025, raising objection for the proposed construction work of construction of a new permanent Circle Office building; as the land where the new building is said to be constructed, is the ancestral land of the petitioner and the same has neither been acquired by the respondent authorities nor been donated by the petitioner for such developmental works.”
4. The respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have filed their affidavit-in-opposition, wherein, a stand has been taken that on the particular land, where construction of Circle Officer’s Office building is taking place; there is no such documentary evidence of ownership from the side of the petitioner, to adduce before this Court as well as before the Deputy Commissioner, Upper Subansiri district, Daporijo; and that the Circle Office, Taksing, was established in the year 1959, as per the records and the land, where the construction of the present Circle Office is going on, is a vacant land and it was voluntarily earmarked by the public of the Tasking Circle, to construct the Circle Office at Taksing; and moreover, from the year 1959 till 2025, the petitioner never made any claim regarding acquisition of land. If the land really belongs to him, then why he could have raised the objection much earlier, not after 65 years.
4.1 It has further been stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that the respondent authorities had conducted a meeting with the public regarding further free and
