SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 12474

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

KOHIMA BENCH


GAHC020002742026


Case No. : WA/17/2026


SHRI NOKMAN KONYAK

S/O LATE WANGSHU KONYAK, R/O TIZIT TOWN, MON, NAGALAND - 798602

VERSUS

THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 5 ORS

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND,

KOHIMA - 797001 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY

HOME

NAGALAND

KOHIMA

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

MON

NAGALAND.

4:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

TIZIT

MON

NAGALAND

5:THE HEAD DOBASHI

TIZIT

C/O ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

TIZIT

NAGALAND.

6:SHRI N. SHOMWANG @ SHOMWANG WANGHAM

S/O NOKZAM WANGHAM - CHIEF ANGH JABOKA VILLAGE

MON

NAGALAND


Advocate for the Petitioner : C. T. JAMIR, SR. ADV,

Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL,


BEFORE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS


Date : 08.05.2026

ORDER

(K.R. Surana, J)

Heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I. Imchen, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. N. Angami, learned Senior Govt. Advocate appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 4.

2) By filing this intra-court appeal, the appellant, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C) 207/2016, has assailed the impugned judgment and order dated 23.03.2026 passed in W.P.(C) 88/2022 in common with W.P.(C) 58/2017 and W.P.(C) 88/2022.

3) In brief, the case of the appellant is that his father, L. Wangshu Konyak (since deceased) was given a Special permit For Farm Land at Tizit vide Note/ communication No. 8487-90 dated 29.03.1971. While the petitioner was a minor, his father died in the year 1974. Taking advantage of the situation, several persons tried to encroach the land covered by special permit, but the District Administration evicted those encroachers vide note/ communication dated 11.04.1975, thereby upholding the special permit issued to the deceased father of the appellant. In course of time, the District Administration started issuing allotment orders to Government Departments and private individuals over parts of the land covered by the said special permit. It is projected that the District Administration remained silent despite several representations submitted by the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant filed a representation before the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland and the said authority by a note/ communication dated 18.07.1996, recorded recognition of the assistance that the father of the appellant had rendered to the District Administration and observed that without his or his successor’s consent, no land should have been allotted to any person or the Government offices and by observing that the administration should always honour the commitment given by the previous administration, directed the District Administration of Mon/Tizit to conduct a special enquiry and submit a detailed report. As no steps was taken by the District Administration in terms of the said note/ communication dated 18.07.1996, by the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland, the appellant had approached this Court by filing a writ petition, which was disposed of by order dated 05.08.2014, passed in W.P.(C) 204(K)/2012, directing the Deputy Commissioner, Mon to hold a special enquiry as directed by the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland within a period of three months and to forward a report to the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland.

4) Thereafter, in the special enquiry report dated 31.10.2014, it was observed that the special permit given to the father of the appellant was measuring 157.81 acres and in respect of the said land, the District Administration had issued 111 nos. of allotment orders from 1988 till date and moreover, the appellant had also sold/ allotted various plots of land to the private individuals and it was suggested that in order to bring an amiable settlement, the appellant be offered 200/300 square feet of land presently under his occupation and in recognition of the service rendered by the father of the appellant, either a school or a public hall in the locality be named after appellant’s father. On 10.07.2015 and 31.07.2015 there were meetings between the District Administration and the appellant in connection with the enquiry report, but no final orders on the said enquiry report was passed.

5) In the meanwhile, the persons whose names were mentioned at Sl. Nos. 2 to 7 of the vacation order dated 20.10.2016, were persons to whom the appellant had given permission to live in his land temporarily. Accordingly, aggrieved by the restraining order dated 15.01.2015 and 12.10.2016, and the vacation order dated 20.10.2016, the appellant has filed W.P.(C) 207(K)/2016. This Court by an interim order dated 07.11.2016, passed in W.P.(C) 207(K)/2016, directed that the persons whose names are mentioned in the vacation order dated 20.10.2016, should not be disturbed in their peaceful p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top