Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 711 (GAU)

T. L. Angami v. State of Nagaland

2011-08-25

P.K.MUSAHARY

body2011
JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. Heard Mr. Limawapang, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mrs. Y. Long kumar, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. Also heard Mr. P.B. Paul, learned counsel appearing for respondents. 2. The Petitioner claim that he is a recorded pattadar/owner of a plot of land measuring 6 B-02K-0L covered by Dag No. 50 (old)1038(New) under Block No. 5 in Mouza No. 2 Dimapur and he has been in occupation of the same by planting Coconut trees, bettlenut Trees etc. According to him, the Respondents No. 4 to 6 who are not a recorded land owners in respect of the aforesaid plot of land, have encroached upon the Petitioner's entire plot of land by erecting boundary wall alongside CRPF Transit Camp. The Petitioner in order to establish his case annexed a photocopy of the jamabandi for surveyed village of Dimapur Town under Mauza No. 2 issued in his favour by the district revenue authority. 3. The Petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur as well as the Commissioner & Secretary Revenue Department, Nagaland for removal of the encroachment. On his approach the Said Deputy Commissioner, Nagaland and Commissioner & Secretary requested the Respondent No. 6 to vacate the private land of the Petitioner vide their letters dated 4.6.2007 and 12 .7.2007 but till now no steps has been taken by the Respondent-authorities to vacate the encroachment and to hand over the land to him. The Petitioner also made representation before the Chief Secretary, Nagaland seeking removal of encroachment and handing over of vacant possession of land to him. Instead of redressal of the Petitioner's grievance, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur vide order No. REV-3/2005-D/11340-44 dated 17.3.08 directed not to stop the ongoing fencing work of the Transit Camp of CRPF Block No. 5 which was being done by CAWD. It w also ordered therein that the whole area of 45 B-o2 K-00 Ls which is under the occupation of the CRPF should be fenced. Aggrieved by the said order the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition to set aside the same with direction to the Respondents to keep the Petitioner's plot of land outside the fencing of CRPF Transit Camp. 4. The bone of contention of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 is reflected in paragraph 4 of the affidavit in opposition filed by them. 4. The bone of contention of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 is reflected in paragraph 4 of the affidavit in opposition filed by them. For ready reference the said paragraph is quoted below: 4. That as regards the statements made in paragraph 2 of the writ petition, the answering deponent respectfully states that the land under Dag No. 49 and SD of Block No. 5 is under the occupation of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF in short), since 1974. Prior to CRPF, it was under occupation of 133 Engineer Regiment of the Army. On inquiry from army authority, it is learnt that the land was originally allotted to Shri Saku Ao during the 2nd World War while he was serving in the Assam Rifles. Later, he died in a road accident and his family members could occupy the land and consequently, the land remained un-allotted and the same was occupied by the 133 Engineer Regiment of the Army. In the meantime it was felt necessary to a have a Transit Camp of CRPF, at Dimapur wherein Railway Head/Station is available nearby. Accordingly, CRPF Transit Camp started functioning at Dimapur, which catered to the need of CRPF personnel deployed in the State of Nagaland and Manipur. The land is approximately 11 acres which reportedly has been allotted to 36 individuals as per list provided by Deputy Commissioner vide their letter No REV-31/70-D/14321 dated 19/3/1996 and the Petitioner is one of them . Furthermore, if there is at all a valid allotment of land made in favour of the Petitioner, covered by Dag No. 50(old 1038) (New) of Block No. 5 Mouza No. 2 measuring 6 B-02K 0L. located in the Industrial village, Ruzuphe, Dimapur then the Petitioner ought to have taken possession of the same within 6 (six) months as is generally stipulated in all such allotment order. However, the Petitioner failed to occupy the said plot of land. Therefore, it appears that the claim of the Petitioner is baseless more so, when the Petitioner has been allotted the said plot of land only in the year 1998: 5. What is to be noted is that unlike the Petitioner the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 who are occupying and enjoying the land in question have not been able to produce any document showing allotment of the land in question by any revenue authority or the Government. What is to be noted is that unlike the Petitioner the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 who are occupying and enjoying the land in question have not been able to produce any document showing allotment of the land in question by any revenue authority or the Government. The status of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 is like encroachers upon private land. In absence of any valid documents issued by the competent authority allowing them to use the land in question, the construction of boundary wall is to be regarded as an unauthorised action and the said unauthorised construction of boundary wall is liable to be removed. 6. Mr. P.B. Paul, learned C.G.C appearing for the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 submits that the CRPF authorities have been occupying and using the plot of land in question for last 35 years and they have acquired right over the said land under the law of adverse possession and as such although the allegation has been made that the Petitioner's land has been encroached by the CRPF authorities, the wall already constructed over the said land cannot be dismantled or removed. I am not ready to accept the submission of the learned CGC. If the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 claim right over the land in question by adverse possession, it should be established by instituting a suit before the appropriate civil court and obtain order/declaration to that effect. 7. The Petitioner in my considered view, by producing the zamabandi issued by the competent revenue authority has been able to establish a prima facie case as a recorded pattadar/owner of the plot of land in question and accordingly, this petition should succeed. The impugned order dated 17.3,08 (Annexure-F to the writ petition ) stands set aside and quashed. The Respondent Deputy Commissioner, Nagaland is directed to cause spot verification through his subordinate Revenue Officer to identify and demarcate the land as per the patta and zamabandi issued earlier in favour of the Petitioner and handover the vacant possession of the land to the Petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur (Respondent No. 6) shall issue notice to the parties concerned to be present on a date to be fixed for spot verification and demarcation of the land. 8. The Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur (Respondent No. 6) shall issue notice to the parties concerned to be present on a date to be fixed for spot verification and demarcation of the land. 8. The entire process should be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of furnishing a certified copy of this order to the learned Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, Respondent No. 6 to do the needful. 9. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed. Petition allowed.