JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Suman Shyam, J. Heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Sr. counsel for the appellants. Also heard Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Govt. Advocate, Nagaland representing the respondents. 2. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24-01-2014 passed in W.P.(C) No. 87(K)/2010 whereby, the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition filed by the present appellants and directed them to seek relief before the civil court. 3. The brief factual matrix of the case is that the appellants herein claim to have purchased certain plots of land from the original owner Shri Anyu Whuorie, T. Khel, Kohima Village in the year 2005. After purchase of the land the appellants claim to be in possession of their respective land. On 06-05-2010, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Kohima, Nagaland had issued an order addressed to the present appellants as well as one Smti. Anhieii Solo, restraining them from undertaking any development work on the eastern side of the Directorate of Health & Family Welfare. The said order appears to have been issued on the basis of a complaint lodged by some unknown person. On 06-05-2010 itself, the 1st Class Magistrate, in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima had issued notice under Section 5(1) of the Nagaland Eviction of Persons in Unauthorized Occupation of Public Land Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1971) stating that the appellants and Smti. Anhieii Solo were in unauthorized occupation of the plot of land, on the eastern side, belonging to the Directorate of Health & Family Welfare, Nagaland and therefore, they were directed to show cause within 15 days as to why an order of eviction under Section 6(i) of the Act of 1971 should not be made. 4. On receipt of the notice dated 06-05-2010, the original owner of the land, namely, Anyu Whuorie had submitted a representation dated 17-05-2010 addressed to the respondent No. 2 categorically stating that the land occupied by the appellants forms part of his ancestral land which had been sold by him to the appellants and one Smti. Anhieii Solo. In the representation dated 17-05-2010, it has also been categorically mentioned that the plots of land are not Government land and no compensation has been paid by the Government for acquiring the same. Anhieii Solo. In the representation dated 17-05-2010, it has also been categorically mentioned that the plots of land are not Government land and no compensation has been paid by the Government for acquiring the same. Similarly, the appellants had also submitted a joint representation dated 02-06-2010 before the respondent No. 2 stating that they were in occupation of their purchased plots of land from Shri Anyu Whuorie. However, notwithstanding the representations referred to above, the Magistrate 1st Class, in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima issued an eviction notice under Section 6(i) of the Act of 1971 dated 08-06-2010 requiring the appellants to vacate the plot of land within 14 days from the date of issuance of the order. Being aggrieved by the order/notice dated 06-05-2010 as well as the eviction notice dated 08-06-2010 the appellants as writ petitioners had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 87(K)/2010, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 24-01-2014. Hence the present appeal. 5. Mr. Jamir, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that there were sufficient materials available on record to indicate that the appellants were in possession of private land purchased from Shri Anyu Whuorie for valuable consideration. He submits that the State respondents have completely failed to produce even an iota of evidence to show that the land under possession of the appellants form a part of Government land. According to learned Sr. counsel, the provision of the Act of 1971 would not be attracted in case of private land and hence, the impugned notice dated 08-06-2010 is wholly without jurisdiction. 6. By drawing the attention of this Court to the contents of the show cause notices as well as the notices of eviction, Mr. Jamir submits that leaving aside the mutually contradictory position reflected in the aforesaid documents, no where does the eviction notice dated 08-06-2010 mention the schedule of the land nor is there any description given in the order so as to identify the land. According to the learned Sr. counsel, the impugned eviction notice is bad on such count alone and hence, liable to be set aside by this Court. 7. Ms. Suokhrie, learned Govt. According to the learned Sr. counsel, the impugned eviction notice is bad on such count alone and hence, liable to be set aside by this Court. 7. Ms. Suokhrie, learned Govt. Advocate, on the other hand, submits that although no schedule of the land has been given in any of the eviction notices issued under Section 6(i) of the Act of 1971 yet, both parties are aware as to the plots of land involved in the proceedings. As such, according to the learned Govt. Advocate, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the appellants. The learned Govt. Advocate further submits that the claim of title over the plots of land in question, as made by the appellants, is evidently based on several disputed questions of facts which cannot be decided in a writ petition and as such, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition and directed the appellants to seek remedy before the civil court. 8. We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration on the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and have also gone through the materials available on record. It appears that taking note of the traffic congestion prevalent at Kohima, the High Power Committee for planned development of the State Capital, in its meeting dated 23-05-2008, had inter alia decided to construct a multilevel parking at the site of existing NST building and Old Medical Directorate. Accordingly, construction work was undertaken by the Department for constructing the multilevel parking by demolishing Old Medical Directorate site by engaging a contractor at an estimated cost of Rs. 1162.64 lakhs. 9. In the present case, a bare perusal of the restraint order as well as the show cause notices both dated 06-05-2010 goes to show that there is no reference whatsoever, as to any specific plot of land. Not to speak of indicating any specific land under the occupation of the appellants, the notice do not even indicate the boundary of the land. Therefore, from a perusal of the notice dated 06-05-2010 it is not possible to identify the plot of land. Same is the case with the eviction notice dated 08-06-2010 wherein the schedule has been left blank. From the materials available on record there is nothing to indicate that the appellants are in occupation of land belonging to the Old Medical Directorate or any other Government land. 10. Same is the case with the eviction notice dated 08-06-2010 wherein the schedule has been left blank. From the materials available on record there is nothing to indicate that the appellants are in occupation of land belonging to the Old Medical Directorate or any other Government land. 10. From perusal of the record, more particularly, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, it appears that the writ petitioners had challenged the legality and validity of the show cause notice dated 06-05-2010 as well as the eviction notice dated 08-05-2010 on the grounds noticed above, but the challenge made by the writ petitioners/present appellants had been rejected by the learned Single Judge without answering the legal pleas raised by the appellants raising the question of validity of the show cause notice/eviction notice. A reading of the Act of 1971 unequivocally goes to show that the provision of the Act can be invoked only when a person is found to be in unauthorized occupation of a public land. It is no doubt true that on the face of competing claims made by both the parties as regards the status of the land raising several disputed question of fact, a declaration as regards the title over the land can be made only in a civil suit instituted before the competent court. However, in the absence of any particulars regarding the description of the land being furnished in the eviction notice, the petitioners/appellants cannot be relegated to the civil court on the basis of such vague eviction notice making an omnibus claim not substantiated by any material on record. 11. Construction of multilevel parking, is no doubt, a measure taken in the interest of public at large. But in doing so, the authorities cannot act in an arbitrary and illegal manner. A reading of Section 6(i) of the Act of 1971 goes to show that satisfaction of the authority regarding unauthorized occupation of the public land is a pre-condition for invoking power under Section 6(i). Section 6(ii) enjoins a duty upon the Deputy Commissioner or any person authorised by him to inspect the land, measure or demarcate the same. However, no such exercise appears to have been carried out in the present case. Therefore, the appellants could not have been asked to vacate their land under the impugned notice without even identifying the land. Section 6(ii) enjoins a duty upon the Deputy Commissioner or any person authorised by him to inspect the land, measure or demarcate the same. However, no such exercise appears to have been carried out in the present case. Therefore, the appellants could not have been asked to vacate their land under the impugned notice without even identifying the land. As such, the learned Single Judge was not correct in dismissing the writ petition by ignoring such relevant pleas regarding the validity of the eviction order raised by the appellants. 12. The question of title over a plot of land can undoubtedly give rise to several disputed question of facts which can only be adjudicated in a civil court. However, in the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that unless the appellants are made aware as to the specific particulars and correct description of the land in respect of which the eviction notices relate to, they would not be furnished with a proper cause of action to approach the civil court seeking declaration of title. Under the circumstances, where the authorities are themselves unaware as to the actual land in respect of which the eviction is sought for, it would be completely unjust to direct the appellants to approach the civil court for redressal of their grievance. 13. It has also been pleaded by the appellants/writ petitioners that the impugned show cause notices/eviction notices had been issued with a malafide intent, at the instance of politically influential person having vested interest, with the sole objective of ousting the appellants from their land. The aforesaid submission of the appellants assume great significance in view of the admitted position of fact that the fourth noticee, namely, Smti. Anhieii Solo has been left undisturbed in the matter notwithstanding the fact that she has not challenged the eviction notice by initiating a legal proceeding. It is also not the case of the respondents that the construction of the multilevel parking has, in any way, been affected due to the occupation of the land by the appellants. 14. In the light of the observation made above, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order dated 24-01-2014 is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the impugned eviction notices dated 08-06-2010 issued to the individual appellants also stand interfered with. 14. In the light of the observation made above, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order dated 24-01-2014 is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the impugned eviction notices dated 08-06-2010 issued to the individual appellants also stand interfered with. It is, however, made clear that notwithstanding the order passed in this appeal, it will be open to the State respondents to initiate fresh proceeding for eviction of the appellants in accordance with law, in the event they are found to have encroached public land. Writ appeal stands allowed.