Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 750 (GAU)

State Of Nagaland v. Vinoka Chishi

2020-11-10

SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

body2020
JUDGMENT Songkhupchung Serto, J. - Heard Mr. K.N Balgopal, learned Advocate General and Mr. T.B., learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General assisted by Ms. Nitya Nanbair and Ms. Visto Rio appearing for the applicant and also heard Mr. Joshua Sheqi, learned counsel appearing of the respondents No. 1 to 13/petitioners in the writ petition and Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.14 in the I.A who is respondent No.6 in the writ petition. 2. This is an I.A praying for modification and/or alteration of the interim order dated 08.01.2020, passed in W.P.(C) No. 7(K)/2020 and the subsequent orders which were also passed by this Court extending the interim order to the extent that the status quo order is confined only to the lands situated at Ekaranipathar Village which are claimed by the respondents/writ petitioners as their lands. 3. From the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the facts which led to the filing of this I.A briefly stated, are as follows; GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER NAGALAND: KOHIMA No. CNR-5/6/99(Pt-II)/1116 Dated, Kohima the 30th Nov. 2019 ORDER A Complaint has been received by this Office to the effect that Shri. Atoshe, S/o. Shri. Viniho has been in illegal occupation of land that has been acquired by the Government of Nagaland for expansion of Dimapur Airport at Diphuphar Village, Dimapur, Nagaland. The land in question pertains to Dag No. 38 & 40 of Diphuphar Village. Based on the complaint, cognizance was taken and summon issued on two occasions. On 12-09-2018, Shri. Atoshe along with 22(twenty two) transferees were summoned to appear along with their supporting documents. However, they failed to take notice of summon and appear. Therefore, another summon was issued on 16-11-2019, directing the concerned parties to make appearance along with their supporting documents on 26-11-2019 at 1100 hours. The summon further provides that on failure to make appearance, the hearing would be conducted ex-parte. On 26-11-2019, Shir. Atoshe represented by Shri. Luckson Sumi along with 16 transferees and the Govt. Stakeholders were present Arguments and counter arguments were heard. Documents relied by the Govt. Stakeholder and the private individuals were carefully scrutinized Heard and satisfied. The summon further provides that on failure to make appearance, the hearing would be conducted ex-parte. On 26-11-2019, Shir. Atoshe represented by Shri. Luckson Sumi along with 16 transferees and the Govt. Stakeholders were present Arguments and counter arguments were heard. Documents relied by the Govt. Stakeholder and the private individuals were carefully scrutinized Heard and satisfied. On the argument led by the individuals, it is found that the main point of contention was that Shri. Atoshe had illegally encroached the land that has been acquired by the Government of Nagaland for expansion of Dimapur Airport. Thereafter, without any lawful title or possession, Shri. Atoshe transferred the land by way of gift/sale to 22(Twenty Two) other individuals. I have carefully perused the document s relied by the parties and it is found that the purported allotment bearing No. VLS-5/86- D/1500-02 dated; 11/05/2004 pertains to a land located at Ekaranipathar. Nowhere, it is found that the aforementioned allotment was in respect of land situated at Diphuphar. The records further reveals that in the Chitha andJamabhandi record, it has been entered as Dag 97 measuring an area of 47B-02L-08Ks which has been further illegally mutated to the 22 (twenty two) individuals at Ekaranipathar. Assuming but not admitting, even if the purported allotment was proper, I see no reason as to how Shri. Atoshe or the other 22 (twenty two) transferees came into possession of the land at Dag No. 38 & 40 situated at Diphuphar village. I am thereforeconstrained to view that Shri. Atoshe and the other 22 (Twenty Two) individuals are in illegal possession of the land at Dag No. 38 &40, which has been acquired for expansion of Dimapur Airport. Further, I have observed that the purported allotment granted to Shri. Atoshe S/o Shri. Viniho bearing No. VLS-5/86-D/1500-02 dated: 11/05/2004, for an area of 27B-02K-08Ls at Dag No. 79 but recorded as an area of 47B-02L-08Ks at Dag No. 97, Ekaranipathar in the Chitha and Jamabhandi record suffers from various anomalies. A close reading of the purported allotment would show that and I quote, A plot of land under Dag No. 79, measuring an area of 27B-02K-08Ls at Ekaranipathar Village, Dimapur, is hereby allotted in the name of Shri. Atoshe S/o. Viniho. There is no mention that prior approval has been obtained before the allotment has been issued. A close reading of the purported allotment would show that and I quote, A plot of land under Dag No. 79, measuring an area of 27B-02K-08Ls at Ekaranipathar Village, Dimapur, is hereby allotted in the name of Shri. Atoshe S/o. Viniho. There is no mention that prior approval has been obtained before the allotment has been issued. It is also been confirmed from Land Revenue Department that no approval was accorded by the Government for allotment of land to Shri. Atoshe S/o Shri. Viniho at Dag No. 79 (97), Ekaranipathar. Thus, this is in gross violation of the various Government OM and Notification issued from time to time by the State Government. It is to be seen that as early as 1992 the Land Revenue Department, Government of Nagaland, has issued ban on allotment of Government land to private individuals/group/parties without the prior and specific approval of the Government. Some of the Government Notification enforcing such ban on allotment of Government land may be referred to as: (1) GAB-2/6/87, dated 15.09.1992, (2) LR/2-21/88, dated 26-10-1921, (3) LR/2-21/88, dated 10-11-1993, (4) LR/2-6/93 dated 06-04-1995, (5) LR/2-20/84, dated 02-02-1996, (6) LR/2-6/93, dated 10-06-96 and (7) LR/2- 6/93, dated 10-06-98. Whereas, when there was complete ban on allotting Government lands, the purported allotment was issued n the year 2004 without the prior and specific approval of Government and hence it is illegal and liable to be cancelled I, therefore, without any prejudice and after giving opportunity of being heard, cancels the Allotment of land granted illegally Vide No. VLS-5/86-D/1500-02, dated 11/05/2004 to Shri. Atoshe, son of Shri. Viniho at Dag No. 79(97) at Ekranipathar Village, Dimapur, Nagaland. This order is to come with immediate effect. (M. PATTON) IAS Commissioner, Nagaland. 4. On the same day, by another Order No. CRN-5/6/99(Pt-II)/1117, dated 30.11.2019, the Commissioner, Nagaland declared that occupation of the land in question under Dag No. 38 & 40 at Diphuphar area by Shri. Atoshe and his transferees as illegal and hence, they are encroachers, and at the same time directed the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur to immediately proceed for eviction as per the relevant rules. The order reads as follows; GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER NAGALAND: KOHIMA No. CNR-5/6/99(Pt-II)/1117 Dated, Kohima the 30th Nov. The order reads as follows; GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER NAGALAND: KOHIMA No. CNR-5/6/99(Pt-II)/1117 Dated, Kohima the 30th Nov. 2019 ORDER The brief fact leading up to this case is that the Airport Authority of India (in short AAI) was allotted by way of lease/transfer of land measuring an area of 621. 58 Acres which includes land at Dag No. 38 & 40 of Diphuphar area under Dimapur District, Nagaland. The said land has been encroached by Shri. Atoshe, who is physically in occupation of the same. The case has been numbered as No. CNR-5/6/99(Pt-II) and all the concerned parties has been issued summon. The concerned parties were directed to appear on 12th September 2018, but the private parties failed to comply. Hence, another notice was issued on 16-11-2019 whereby the parties were directed to appear on 26-11-2019 at 1100 hours with all supporting documents. The notice further mentions that the hearing would proceed ex-parte against any party/individual who fail to appear on the stipulated date and time. As summoned, on 26-11-2019, out of 23, only were 17 present. The parties who were present are; (a) DC, Dimapur, was Represented by RO & DLRSO (b) Advocate Shri. Haihangrang E.H Newme represented Airport Authority of India, Dimapur, Nagaland (c) (1) Shri. Luckson Sumi represented Shri. Atoshe, (2) Shri. InatoYeptho, (3) Shri. Omega represented Shri. KughaluYeptho, (4) Shri. Luckson Sumi represented Shri. ShelokaYeptho, (5) Shri. TokiheChishi, (6) Shri. VinokaChishi, (7) Shri. Luckson Sumi represented Shri. AkahoZhimo, (8) Shri. ShikaiTuccu, (9) Smti. Toshili Sumi, (10) Shri. KivikhuKiho, (11) Smti. Lydia K. Chophy represented Shri. SuhutoChishi, (12) Shri. HeitoSema, (13) Shri. M. Sensotemjen, (14) Shri. Pushito, (15) Shri. HoshitoShohe, (16) Shri. Hokashe, (17) Shri. HoshetoMurru represented Shri. H. InotoMurru. Arguments and counter-arguments were heard from all the parties concerned. The documents relied on by the parties were meticulously examined and perused. Adv. Haihangrang E.H. Newme, who represented the Airport Authorityof India, goes on to submit that AAI has a total of 621.58 Acres but in the present context, its actual occupation is only 277 acres. This has been occasioned due to encroachment of its land by Shri. Atoshe, who later on sold/gifted the encroached land to 22(Twenty two) other individuals and other. Haihangrang E.H. Newme, who represented the Airport Authorityof India, goes on to submit that AAI has a total of 621.58 Acres but in the present context, its actual occupation is only 277 acres. This has been occasioned due to encroachment of its land by Shri. Atoshe, who later on sold/gifted the encroached land to 22(Twenty two) other individuals and other. Basing on his submission, the Advocate prayed that; (i) The encroachers be evicted from AAI land or (ii) Necessary legal action be initiated against all the encroachers for eviction (iii) All the land belonging to AAI be restored back to AAI (iv) Any permanent or temporary structures in AAI land constructed by the encroachers be demolished (v) That all the land illegally regularized may be cancelled Per contra, Shri. Luckson Sumi, representative of Shri.Atoshe, stated that the said Shri. Atoshe has title, ownership and possession over the suit land. To this end, he relied ad placed on record 2(two) allotment order purported to have been issued to Shri. Atoshe. The same is reproduced as under;- (i) Area of 27B-02K-08Ls at Dag No. 79, Ekaraniphathar Vide DC Dimapur Order No. VLS-5/86-D/1500-02, dated 11/05/2004. (ii) An Area of 23B-03K-10Ls at Dag No. 40/100, Diphuphar Vide DC Dimapur Order No. VLS/91-D/Pt. file/1502-05 dated 10/08/2009. Similarly, 17(seventeen) parties who attended the hearing were given opportunity to present their case. In unison, they stated that they had purchased the lands from Shri. Hukato, father of Shiloka, who had himself, prepared the relevant documents/papers for the same. However, they failed to produce the trace map which is necessary for issue of any land patta. Furthermore, they failed to explain as to how they were in occupation of the land acquired for expansion of Dimapur Airport at Diphuphar, Dimapur, Nagaland when Pattas they had relied on were in respect of Ekaranipathar. Heard and satisfied. On perusal of the entire materials/documents placed on record would show that the Government of Nagaland had acquired land for expansion of Dimapur Airport. The land pertains to Dag No. 38 & 40 of Diphuphar area under Dimapur District, Nagaland. As per the record, the State Government had acquired land for the expansion of Dimapur Airport on several occasions. The lands so acquired are given as under;- -29.42 acres from 14(fourteen) private land owners in 1989 -85.66 acres from 13(thirteen) land owners in 1992. -60678 sq.ft. As per the record, the State Government had acquired land for the expansion of Dimapur Airport on several occasions. The lands so acquired are given as under;- -29.42 acres from 14(fourteen) private land owners in 1989 -85.66 acres from 13(thirteen) land owners in 1992. -60678 sq.ft. from private land owners in 1993 -54.45 acres from private land owners in 1995 -An area of 25 ftx25 ft was gifted by Shri. S. Hetoyi Head GB and Shri. S. Vihoto sumi in 1997. -79.33 acres of land from private parties in 2003. On the other hand, Mr. Atoshe, has claimed the suit land on the basis of allotment purported to have been given to him vide DC Dimapur Order No. VLS-5/86-D/1500-02 dated 11/05/2004 for an area of 27B-02K-08Ls at Dag No. 79, Ekaranipathar, Dimapur, Nagaland. Upon examination of records, it appears that Shri. Atoshe is claiming over a land at Diphuphar Village when the purported allotment was made in respect of land situated at Ekaranipathar. Furthermore, the land under his occupation has already been acquired for the AAI. Hence under such circumstances, it is observed that the land in occupation by Shri. Atoshe and the transferees are illegal and hence they are encroachers. In order words, the concerned persons are in occupations of public land. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur is directed to immediately proceed for eviction as per the relevant law. Sd/- (M. PATTON) IAS Commissioner, Nagaland. 5. In pursuance of the above given order, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur cancelled the mutation orders of the petitioners in respect of the lands claimed by them including that of the individuals. The order reads as follows; GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER NAGALAND: KOHIMA ORDER Dated, Dimapur the 5 thDec. 2019 No. REV-31/2016-D/I/ WHEREAS summon dated 7th November, 2019 was issued to Atoshe and 22 others in connection with illegal occupation of land covered by Dag No. 38 and 40 of Diphuphar, directing them to appear on 15/11/2019 with all original land documents. The parties as directed had appeared in person and through representatives. On the day of the hearing, land documents in support of their claim were received and their oral submissions were recorded. Earlier, the matter was forwarded to the Commissioner Nagaland who also issued summon on 12/09/2018, but the parties failed to take notice of the summons and did not appear for the hearing. On the day of the hearing, land documents in support of their claim were received and their oral submissions were recorded. Earlier, the matter was forwarded to the Commissioner Nagaland who also issued summon on 12/09/2018, but the parties failed to take notice of the summons and did not appear for the hearing. Consequently, a second summon was issued directing them to appear on 26/11/2019 with supporting documents and the hearing was held accordingly. AND WHEREAS the Commissioner, Nagaland, by Order NO. CNR5/6/99(Pt-II)/1116, dated 30-11-2019, cancelled the Allotment Order No. VLS-5/86-D/1500-02 issued to Atoshe, S/o Viniho for an area of 27B-02K08Ls, in respect of land covered by Dag No. 79, Ekaranipathar, but recorded as Dag No. 97, Ekaranipathar, for an area of 47B-02K-08Ls in the Chitha and Jamabandi records. AND WHEREAS, consequently with the cancellation of the allotment order in the name of Atoshe, the mutation to 22 individuals from Shri. Atoshespatta are not based on any valid right or title of Shri. Atoshe. It is a fact that mutation entries by itself does not confer any right or title over the land. AND WHEREAS, ban on allotment of Government land to private individuals without prior approval of the Government is in force since 1992 through various Government O.M and notifications issued from time to time. However, on scrutiny of the documents submitted by the transferees and the mutation record available in the Office, it is found that the mutations of the pattas were not done as per the laid down procedure. The 22 transferees were also given an opportunity of fair hearing. I have carefully examined the mater in its entirety and upon perusal of the materials placed on record and satisfied. I hereby cancel the mutations order and pattas issued in the name of the following individual; Sl. The 22 transferees were also given an opportunity of fair hearing. I have carefully examined the mater in its entirety and upon perusal of the materials placed on record and satisfied. I hereby cancel the mutations order and pattas issued in the name of the following individual; Sl. No. Name Dag No Patta No Revenue Village Mutation Order No 1 Shri. InatoYeptho 892/1068 873 Ekranipathar A.K M-973/12/4739-40 dated 13/07/12 2 Shri. KughaluYeptho 892/1069 874 Ekranipathar A.K M-973/12/4739-40 dated 13/07/12 3 Shri. HekheviYeptho 892/1070 875 Ekranipathar A.K M-973/12/4739-40 dated 13/07/12 4 Shri. ShelokhaYeptho 97/892 726 Ekranipathar A.K M-973/12/4739-40 dated 13/07/12 5 Shri. Linovi H Zhimo 892/1287 1072 Ekranipathar A.K M-111/15/11445-46 dated 04/02/15 6 Shri. Tito Yeptho 892/1288 1073 Ekranipathar A.K M-111/15/11445-46 dated 04/02/15 7 Shri. TokiheChishi 892/1307 1091 Ekranipathar A.K M-450/15/1409-10 dated 29/04/15 8 Shri. VinokaChishi 892/1308 1092 Ekranipathar A.K M-451/15/1407-8 dated 29/04/15 9 Shri. AkahoZhimo 892/1319 1102 Ekranipathar A.K M-661/15/6709-10 dated 16/06/15 10 Shri. KakhehoYeptho 892/1320 1103 Ekranipathar A.K M-663/15/6713-14 dated 16/06/15 11 Shri. H. InotoMurru 892/1321 1104 Ekranipathar A.K M-669/6715-16 dated 16/06/15 12 Shri. ShikaiTuccu 892/1322 1105 Ekranipathar A.K M-662/15/6711-12 dated 16/06/15 13 Smti. Toshili Sumi 892/1323 1106 Ekranipathar A.K M-660/15/6707-08 dated 16/06/15 14 Shri. C Yang Khiamniungan 892/1324 1107 Ekranipathar A.K M-665/15/6717-18 dated 16/06/15 15 Shri. KivikhuKiho 892/1404 1193 Ekranipathar A.K M-296/15/503-4 dated 22/12/15 16 Shri. SuhutoChishi 892/1405 1194 Ekranipathar A.K M-296/15/497-98 dated 22/12/15 17 Shri. Asuka Albert Sumi 892/1406 1195 Ekranipathar A.K M-296/15/495-98 dated 22/12/15 18 Shri. Heito Sumi 892/1407 1196 Ekranipathar A.K M-296/15/505-06 dated 22/12/15 19 Shri. M. Sensotemjen 892/1408 1197 Ekranipathar A.K M-296/15/507-08 dated 22/12/15 20 Shri. Phushito 892/1409 1198 Ekranipathar A.K M-296/15/499-500 dated 22/12/15 21 Shri. HoshitoShohe 892/1450 1199 Ekranipathar A.K M-296/15/493-95 dated 22/12/15 22 Shri. Hokashe 892/1451 1200 Ekranipathar A.K M-296/15/501-02 dated 22/12/15 The surveyor in-charge of revenue record branch is directed to cancel thepattas from the Revenue Record. Sd/- (ANOOP KHINCHI) IAS Deputy Commissioner Dimapur : Nagaland. 6. Sd/- (ANOOP KHINCHI) IAS Deputy Commissioner Dimapur : Nagaland. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, Nagaland, issued vide Memo No. CNR-5/6/99(Pt-II)/116, dated 30.11.2019 (the first order) and the order issued by the Deputy Commissioner, vide Memo No. REV-31/2016-D/I, dated 05.12.2019, (the third order), the petitioners came before this Court by filing the writ petition (main petition) which is registered as W.P.(C) No. 151(K) of 2020 challenging the two orders and praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari-quashing and setting aside the two orders and also praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the authority not to give consequential effect to the impugned order under Memo No. CNR-5/6/99(Pt-II)/116, dated 30.11.2019,(the third order), and also praying for a direction directing the respondents to refrain or forbear from giving effect to the impugned order issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, vide Memo No. REV-31/2016-D/I/, dated 05.12.2019, (the fourth order) and praying for a direction directing the respondents not to evict the petitioners from theirrespective plot of lands as mentioned in the paragraph-7 of the writ petition, and praying in the interim, to stay or suspendoperation of the order issued by the Commissioner, Nagaland, vide Memo No. CNR-5/6/99(Pt-II)/116, dated 30.11.2019 and the order issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, vide Memo No.REV-31/2016-D/I, dated 05.12.2019. The petition was moved on 08.01.2020 and on that day this Court passed anorder, the operative portion of which is reproduced herein below; "I have due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents. From the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, it is found that a ban on allotment of Government land to private individuals without prior approval of the Government had been in force since 1992 and scrutiny of the documents of the petitioners submitted by them who are the transferee's from the proforma respondent No. 6 were illegal and as a result it was found that the mutations of the petitioners' names were not done as per the laid down procedure. The said observation made by the respondent supports the fact that there is a prima facie case to be heard at length in favour of the petitioners. Considering the same, I am satisfied to pass an order of status-quo in respect of possession of the petitioners over the land covered by the impugned orders. 7. The said observation made by the respondent supports the fact that there is a prima facie case to be heard at length in favour of the petitioners. Considering the same, I am satisfied to pass an order of status-quo in respect of possession of the petitioners over the land covered by the impugned orders. 7. On receiving the notice, the respondents No. 1 to 5 appeared through their learned counsels and thereafter, found the interim order given in the order dated 08.01.2020 which is reproduced hereinabove and filed the instant I.A praying for modification of the same as stated above. It is submitted by the learned Advocate General that the land illegally occupied or encroached by the opposite parties (writ petitioners) is under Dag No. 38 & 40 of the Diphuphar area under Dimapur district which was allotted to the Airport Authority of India by way of lease and the same is urgently needed for expansion and development of the Airport but due to the encroachment of the land by the opposite party the project has been kept on hold. The learned Advocate General further submitted that the land which is claimed to be allotted to the opposite party No. 14 from or through whom the other opposite parties have purportedly acquired title and right through gift or sale is under Dag No. 79(97) situated at Ekaranipathar. Therefore, the two lands are different and the opposite party have no right to occupy the land at Diphuphar mentioned above. As such, they are illegal encroachers who have no right to occupy the same. 8. The next submissions of the learned Advocate General is that in any case the so called allotment order issued in favour of therespondent No.6 in the writ petition/opposite party No. 14 in this I.A through which claim for title and ownership is made over the land under Dag No. 79/97, situated at Ekaranipatharhas been cancelled as the same was issued in violation of the standing orders of the Government issued under the relevant rules from time to time, therefore, the opposite party have no title over the land and no legal right to continue to occupy the same. The learned Advocate General, thereafter referred to paragraph-x of para2 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the opposite party in this I.A and submitted that as per their statement made therein, the opposite party are not against the development of the Airport for larger good of the people if adequate compensation is given to them. Therefore, they are not totally against the processfor their eviction if compensation is given. 9. Lastly, the learned Advocate General submitted that on careful reading of the prayers made in writ petition one would find that there is no prayer for stay of the order No. CNR-5/6/99(Pt-II)/11, dated 30th Nov. 2019 in which the Commissioner, Nagaland came to the conclusion that the opposite party are illegal encroachers to the land in question and thereby directed the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur to proceed for eviction as per law, therefore, the opposite party are illegal encroachers and they have no right to occupy the land at Diphuphar area which belongs to the Airport Authority of India. As such, the interim order dated 08.01.2020 be modified so that it does not cover the lands under Dag No. 38 & 40 situated at Diphupar 10. Mr. Joshua, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party who are the writ petitioners submitted that the allotment order and the mutation orders were issued by the respondents after following due process, therefore, they cannot now turn around and say that they were issued in violation of standing orders issued by the Government from time to time. The learned counsel then submitted that the matter would need to be examined carefully by calling the records as such, the opposite party who are in possession of the land should not be disturbed at this stage. The learned counsel also submitted that the land which was allotted to Shri. Atoshe from whom the others had obtained the right and title through sale and gift is the land occupied by them at Diphuphar though in the allotment order issued by the respondents it was mentioned as Dag No. 79/97 of Ekaranipathar. The learned counsel further submitted that since the order was issued by the respondents themselves, the opposite party/writ petitioners cannot be made to bear the consequences of giving the name of the actual location of the land wrongly, specially when, they have been in occupation of the same for a long time. 11. The learned counsel further submitted that since the order was issued by the respondents themselves, the opposite party/writ petitioners cannot be made to bear the consequences of giving the name of the actual location of the land wrongly, specially when, they have been in occupation of the same for a long time. 11. On asking of the Court as to whether the land allotment order issued in the name of Shri. Atoshe was for the land under Dag No. 79/97 at Ekaranipathar or the land under Dag No. 38 & 40 of Diphuphar area, the learned counsel representing the opposite party/writ petitioners submitted that it is for the land at Ekaranipathar. 12. There are three things one must look at while considering a case for temporary injunction and they are; (i) Whether the petitioners has strong prima facie case to go for trial or not. (ii) Whether balance of convenience is on the side of the petitioner or not and; (iii) Whether irreparable loss would be suffered by the petitioner if no restrain or injunction is granted. 13. Coming to the first point, it appears from the documents and the submissions of the learned counsels that whereas, the actual land under dispute are under Dag No. 38 & 40 of Diphuphar Village the land allotted to Shri. Atoshe from whom the others are claiming to have acquired right and title are under Dag No. 79/97 of Ekaranipathar. It is, therefore, obvious that the opposite party/petitioners can claim right and title only in respect of the land under Dag No. 79/97 situated at Ekaranipathar and not over the other land under Dag No. 38 & 40 situated at Diphuphar Village. The opposite party cannot gain anything by saying that it is the respondents who issued the allotment order, therefore, in mentioning wrong name of the location of the land allotted to them would not make any difference because they have been in possession of the actual land allotted. It is for them to have verify and confirmed that the document bears right particulars of the land they are supposed to have been allotted. They cannot claim right and title for the land at Diphuphar on the basis of an allotment order of any other land. It is for them to have verify and confirmed that the document bears right particulars of the land they are supposed to have been allotted. They cannot claim right and title for the land at Diphuphar on the basis of an allotment order of any other land. To conclude, it may be stated that since the allotment order and the subsequent orders of mutations were issued rightly or wrongly by competent authorities, the opposite party i.e. writ petitioners has strong prima facie case to go for a hearing in respect of the land under Dag No. 79/97 at Ekaranipathar but not for the land under Dag No. 38 & 40 of Diphuphar Village. In other words, the opposite party/writ petitioners have a prima facie case in regards the lands under Dag No.79/97 at Ekaranipathar but not in regards to the lands under Dag No. 38 & 40 of Diphuphar. 14. On the second question i.e. on which side the balance of convenience lies; it follows from the conclusion drawn above that even if one is to assume that the opposite party have been in possession of the actual land in dispute i.e. the land under Dag No. 38 & 40 of Dpihuphar the balance of convenience cannot be on their side since the documents based on which they are claiming right and title are in respect of the land situated at Ekaranipathar and not under Dag No. 38 & 40 of Diphuphar Village. Balance of convenience can be claimed only by one in legitimate possession and not by anyone else. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General had submitted that the lands under Dag No. 38 & 40 at Diphuphar are situated adjacent to the Dimapur Airport and the same were leased to the Airport Authority of India and the latter is in urgent need of the same for the much needed expansion and development of the Airport. Weighing the interest of the individuals and the public interest on the scale it is obvious that the public interest would tilt the scale. Moreover, from the writ petition, the opposite party are not totally opposed to development work of the Airport provided they are given compensation. The question of compensation can still be considered even after the disposal of the main petition while the development cannot be held back for a long time. Moreover, from the writ petition, the opposite party are not totally opposed to development work of the Airport provided they are given compensation. The question of compensation can still be considered even after the disposal of the main petition while the development cannot be held back for a long time. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view of that balance of convenience in respect of the land under Dag No. 38 & 40 of Diphuphar Village is not on the side of the opposite party i.e. the writ petitioners. 15. Coming to the last point that is, as to whether the opposite party/writ petitioners would suffer irreparable loss in case they are removed from the land in question, it would be obvious from what has been stated above in the preceding paragraphs more particularly because of the fact that the land for which they are seemingly having right and title is at Ekaranipathar and not on the land under Dag No. 38 & 40 of Diphuphar Village, no irreparable loss is likely to be suffered by the opposite party. 16. It may also be mentioned here that the learned Advocate General had even submitted that the petitioner herein is not going to do anything in regards to the land under Dag No. 79/97 of Ekaranipathar for the time being but only prays for modification of the interim order in respect to the land under Dag No. 38 & 40 situated at Diphuphar Village. Moreover, as stated already, the opposite party/writ petitioners will also have the right to claim compensation in case they are successful in showing that they have right and title over the land under Dag No. 38 & 40. 17. In view of what has been stated above, I am of the view that the interim order needs to be modified. Accordingly, it is hereby modified as follows; 18. That the status quo order shall remain only in respect of the land under Dag No. 79/97 situated at Ekaranipathar and not for the land under Dag No. 38 & 40 situated at Diphuphar Village. 19. With this, I.A.(C) is disposed of.