2026 Supreme(Gau) 996

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J.
Shri L. Atopu Sumi – Petitioner 
Versus
State Of Nagaland And Ors. – Respondents 
WP(C)/86 of 2025
Decided On : 23-04-2026

Revenue authorities possess the jurisdiction to conduct record-based inquiries to identify the nature of land (public versus private) as an administrative function for managing pathways. Such determinations do not constitute a conclusive adjudication of title, which remains exclusively within the domain of the civil courts.

Headnote:(A) Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 - Section 165(1) and Rule 18(1) - Power of revenue authorities to eject encroachers from public land - Necessity of prior spot verification and record examination - Determination of the nature of land as public versus private.

(B) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Requirement of hearing before ordering removal of obstruction - Compliance with the rule of audi alteram partem is mandatory even in cases regarding unauthorized occupation of public land - Proceedings held with notice, written opportunity, and survey reports satisfy requirements of natural justice (Paras 35, 39, and 40).

(C) Jurisdiction - Competency of revenue authorities - Revenue statutes authorize executive officers to conduct inquiries to ascertain the status of land records - Such administrative determination does not amount to a conclusive adjudication of title between private parties, which remains a matter for the civil courts - Interference unjustified where authority acts within statutory scope (Paras 38 and 39).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner constructed a gate across an approach road, claiming the path to be private property. Other residents filed a complaint alleging the road was public land, leading to an inquiry by revenue authorities. A survey was conducted confirming the path did not fall within the petitioner's patta land. Based on these findings, the authorities directed the removal of the gate. The petitioner challenged the order, contending that the revenue authorities lacked jurisdiction to decide the nature of the land and failed to follow proper procedures.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the revenue authorities are required to verify land records and conduct surveys to distinguish between private and public property to maintain public access. The impugned order did not adjudicate title, which is within the civil court's domain, but rather performed a factual inquiry into whether the land was government-owned. The procedural requirements were satisfied as the petitioner attended hearings, submitted written arguments, and participated in the survey process, thereby fulfilling the principles of natural justice and fair procedure.

Issues: Whether revenue authorities possess the jurisdiction to determine the nature of a path as public or private land and whether the procedure followed for the removal of an encroachment complied with statutory norms and the principles of natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: Revenue authorities acting under the relevant land regulations possess the incidental power to examine records and conduct surveys to determine the nature of land for administrative purposes, specifically to remove unauthorized obstructions. Such an exercise does not constitute a final adjudication of proprietary title, which is reserved for civil courts, provided that the opportunity of being heard was accorded to the affected party in terms of natural justice.

Result: Petition dismissed.