Back
2026 Supreme(Gau) 942
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Robin Phukan, J.
Tindu Chader, Son of Late Tayu Chader – Petitioner
Versus
The State of AP represented by the Secretary, Land Management Department and ors. – Respondent
WP(C) 06 of 2025
Decided On : 27-03-2026
For the Petitioner: Mr. D. Kamduk
For the Respondent:Ms. G. Ete, Add. Senior Government Advocate
In writ jurisdiction, when title to land is disputed by the government and a private individual, the claimant bears the burden of proof. Absent documentary evidence, the court should direct the state to verify the claim before continuing with developmental construction on the disputed property.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Land ownership dispute - Petitioner claiming ownership of land occupied for public infrastructure - Burden of proof rests upon the claimant to establish title through valid documentation - In the absence of documentary evidence, ownership claims remain mere assertions - While the state must follow procedural requirements for acquisition, claims over long-standing public infrastructure require substantiated proof of title - Failure to produce such proof renders the claim unsubstantiated. (Paras 11, 14, 15)
(B) Writ jurisdiction - Discretionary power - Verification of facts - Courts should not decide disputed questions of fact regarding ownership when documentation is ambiguous, instead requiring administrative verification to prevent arbitrary encroachment or violation of private property rights. (Paras 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
A claimant sought to challenge the construction of a permanent government structure on land allegedly owned by the claimant and previously lent for temporary usage. The respondent authorities argued that the site was government land established decades prior, asserting the property was donated by ancestors. The claimant failed to produce ownership documentation, and a previously obtained authorization from local community leaders was subsequently withdrawn.
Findings of Court:
The court noted that the current site has served as a public utility for decades, and the claimant provided no proof of ownership or consistent usage rights. Conflicting reports regarding the land's origin and the absence of clear title documents led the court to determine that the burden of proving entitlement remained unfulfilled.
Issues: Whether the claimant successfully established ownership of the contested land to prevent the state from proceeding with construction and whether the state is obligated to acquire the land despite claims of ancestral donation.
Ratio Decidendi: Administrative authorities must verify the veracity of title claims through objective assessment before proceeding with infrastructure projects. When title is disputed, the court may direct an administrative review to ascertain the validity of ownership claims rather than allowing projects to proceed without due process where private rights may be affected.
Result: Petition disposed of, with directions issued for the state to verify the claimant's status and, if legitimate ownership is proven, to initiate proper acquisition processes.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and factual genesis of land ownership dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 6) |
| 2. conflicting contentions regarding land donation versus private ownership. (Para 4 , 5 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court analysis concluding failure to substantiate ownership claims. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. order for administrative verification before construction proceeds. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
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 andthe 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 voluntary donation of land, as the administration requires more land for establishment of Government infrastructure; as the area is very sensitive and it is very proximate to
