Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 209 (GAU)

David Kinghen v. State of Nagaland

2006-03-03

I.A.ANSARI

body2006
JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. The present one is a case, which demonstrates utter lack of sensitivity of the State in dealing with the family of one of its citizens. The State, in the present case, as would transpire shortly, kept, with the help of its sheer might and not on the strength of any law, not only the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest, but also the petitioner deprived from the enjoyment of their landed property for a number of years. If allowed to go unchecked, cases, such as the present one, would breed frustration. If the Court, in a case, as serious as the present one, does not step in promptly and give, within the ambit of law, adequate reliefs to the person(s) concerned, the annoyance, frustration and helplessness of persons, such as, the present petitioner, would give rise to fissiparous tendencies in the society, make people lose trust and confidence in the system of governance itself. Casualty of such circumstances would be peace in the society. Such a situation would not auger well for the administration of justice inasmuch as frustrated minds would not only lose faith in the efficacy of the administration of justice and in the meaningful existence of the rule of law, but such frustrated and deprived persons would, eventually, become a threat to the orderly existence of the society itself. 2. Put in a narrow compass, the facts, which are not in dispute, emerge, thus : The petitioner's father had a plot of land, at Kohima, and he constructed a house thereon. This plot of land along with the house standing thereon came to be occupied, in the year 1945, by the police personnel at Kohima. After relentless struggle by the father of the petitioner for a good many years, the Government fixed, on 6.12.1973, rent, with effect from 1.1.1946, @ Rs. 53.34 per month in respect of the said house. This fixation of rent yielded no meaningful result for the petitioner's father and no payment of rent was made. Eventually, the Superintendent of Police, Kohima, requested, vide his letter, dated 18.12.1972, the Inspector General of Police, Nagaland, to move the State Government to accord formal sanction for payment of house rent to the petitioner's father. Notwithstanding such passionate pleas, the petitioner's father died in the year 1978, without receiving any rent. Eventually, the Superintendent of Police, Kohima, requested, vide his letter, dated 18.12.1972, the Inspector General of Police, Nagaland, to move the State Government to accord formal sanction for payment of house rent to the petitioner's father. Notwithstanding such passionate pleas, the petitioner's father died in the year 1978, without receiving any rent. The State Government, however, mercifully, made payment of some rent, in the year 1979, to the petitioner's mother. Thereafter, despite repeated representations made by the petitioner and his mother, no payment of rent was made to them. The petitioner's mother died expecting to receive the rent lawfully due to them. After his mother's death too, the petitioner's struggle to obtain rent continued. This struggle, however, bore no fruits. On the other hand, in the year 2003, the respondents, without even seeking, far less obtaining, consent of the petitioner, dismantled the said house and constructed, on the said plot of land, residential quarters for accommodating police personnel. On 17.10.2003, the petitioner made a representation for payment of land rent, cost of his dismantled house and compensation for the land, which the respondents had been occupying and using. This representation did not move anyone. The petitioner, therefore, approached the Chief Minister of the State, who, in turn, asked, vide his letter, dated 10.1.2005, the Director General of Police, Nagaland, to attend to the matter without delay. Following this direction, a spot verification report was prepared, on 1.3.2005, but, thereafter, no action was taken by the respondents. Feeling helpless and aggrieved by total apathy exhibited to the humane cause of the petitioner, the petitioner, with the help of the present writ petition made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, came to this Court, seeking appropriate reliefs. 3. In course of time, the Court, in the present writ petition, passed, on 22.9.2005, an order directing the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima, to complete the process of verification and enquiry with regard to the claim of ownership of the land made by the petitioner and submit the result of such verification and enquiry to the Court within a period of four months. The Deputy Commissioner, Kohima, has accordingly submitted his report, dated 15.2.2006. This report shows that the petitioner is the owner of the land, which the Department of Police, at Kohima, has been occupying and utilizing by constructing residential quarters thereon for use of the police personnel. The Deputy Commissioner, Kohima, has accordingly submitted his report, dated 15.2.2006. This report shows that the petitioner is the owner of the land, which the Department of Police, at Kohima, has been occupying and utilizing by constructing residential quarters thereon for use of the police personnel. It is in such circumstances that the present writ petition has been taken up for hearing. 4. I have heard Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. Y Longkumer, Learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State respondents. 5. While considering the present writ petition, what needs to be borne in mind is that though the right to property has no longer remained a fundamental right, yet the fact remains Article 300A of the Constitution of India assures to every person that he would not be deprived of his property save by authority of law. In the light of the protection provided to every person under Article 300 of the Constitution of India, the State cannot deprive a person of his property except in accordance with law and if a person is deprived of his use of the property without the authority of law, not only that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked for remedying the wrong, but it, in fact, in such a case, becomes the constitutional obligation of the High Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and pass appropriate directions. 6. The present one is a case, which is quite akin to the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Manohar reported in AIR 2005 SC 488 , wherein a person had been dispossessed from his land by one of the organs of the State without payment of any compensation and, thereafter, buildings and other structures were raised thereon. In these circumstances, the Apex Court pointed out that notwithstanding the fact that the right to property no longer remains a fundamental right, the State cannot deprive a person of his property except in accordance with law and if a person is deprived of the use of his property without the authority of law, the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be taken resort to for remedying such wrong. I am tempted to quote from Mahohar (supra) the observations made, in this regard, by the Apex Court, which run as follows: 7. Ours is a constitutional democracy and the rights available to the citizens are declared by the Constitution. Although Article 19(1)(f) was deleted by the Forty-fourth Amendment to the Constitution, Article 300A has been placed in the Constitution, which reads as follows : 300A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law. No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. 8. This is a case where we find utter lack of legal authority for deprivation of the respondent's property by the appellants who are State authorities. In our view, this case was an eminently fit one for exercising the writ: jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In our view, the High Court was somewhat liberal in not imposing exemplary costs on the appellants. We would have perhaps followed suit, but for the intransigence displayed before us. 7. In the case at hand, it is abundantly clear and is, in fact, not in dispute that the Department of Police came to occupy the land, in question, without any authority of law and though after a number of years had passed, some payment of rents was made for the house, which the respondents had occupied, no further rent was paid to the owner of the land and, thereafter, the owner was permanently deprived of the enjoyment of his property and, in course of time, by dismantling the said house, new structures were raised thereon by the respondents and the respondents have been utilising and enjoying the said land without paying any heed to the petitioner's just, rightful and genuine grievances. The petitioner has, thus, been deprived of his property without any authority of law. this Court cannot help but observe that such actions of the respondents, as indicated hereinbefore, are nothing but arbitrary. 8. Unable to defend the actions of the present respondents, Ms. Y Longkumer, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the respondents do not dispute that the petitioner has been the owner of the land, in question, but they seek six month's time to determine the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner and make payment thereof. 9. Y Longkumer, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the respondents do not dispute that the petitioner has been the owner of the land, in question, but they seek six month's time to determine the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner and make payment thereof. 9. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima, is hereby directed to make, within a period of two months from today, the assessment of the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner by way of rent, cost of the land, etc. and inform the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 about the amount of the compensation so determined and, within a period of four months thereafter, the respondents, particularly, respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, shall make payment of the amount of the compensation that may be determined as directed hereinbefore. 10. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall stand disposed of with cost of Rs. 1,000 against the respondents. 11. Send forthwith a copy of this order to the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima.