JUDGMENT S. Hukato Swu, J. - The present appeal under Rule 29 of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland read with Article 227 of the Constitution is filed by the Northeast Frontier Railways represented by its General Manager and the Divisional Railway Manager, Northeast Frontier Railway, Lumding, Assam challenging the impugned order No.LD-1/2001-D/1/11126 dated 17-08-2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, Nagaland wherein, the State of Nagaland represented by the Chief Secretary, Nagaland, Kohima, the Commissioner, Nagaland, Kohima, the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaland, Dimapur, Nagaland and Shri. Lhoutuo Loucu are arrayed as the opposite parties while M/S Loktak, H.E. Project represented by the Chif Engineer, Loktak Down Stream, H.E. Project Vidyut Vihar, P.O., Loktak, Kom Keirap-795124, Manipur has been arrayed as proforma opposite party. 2. Facts of the case is that the Northeast Frontier Railways was allotted a plot of land measuring 135.502 acres in Naga Hill, under Dimapur Mouza for Railway plan land etween Rangapahar crossingKhatkhati and was in possession of the said land since independence period. The allotted land was traced out as plan DEN/LMGs DRG No.L/6/64/63 and jointly signed by District Engineer, N.F. Railway, Lumding and the then Sub-Deputy Collector, Dimapur in the year 1964. The railway land is 300 feet on both sides of the railway tracks as per the plan. This plan was further verified by SubDeputy Collector, Dimapur on 06-08-1978 which is placed as Annexure-A. 3. Out of the said plot of land, on 04-11-1972, the N.F. Railways had licensed out a plot of land measuring 24000 sq.ft/1.66 bigha to M/S Loktak H.E. Project, Imphal/proforma opposite party No.1 for the purpose of stacking heavy materials and erection of gantry for loading and unloading facilities. The appellants have licensed out the said land to the opposite party No.1 on payment of Rs. 2187/- as license fees and supervision charges. This was contained in letter No.W/338/1/DMV dated 04-11-1972 contained in Annexure-B. Proforma opposite party No.1, thereafter, made initial payment for the license upto 1978 and thereafter, stopped paying. Letters demanding payment of license fees that is due were written to the proforma opposite party No.1 which is placed at Annexure-C. On 18-10-2004, the plot of land was measured by the parties i.e. Assistant Divisional Manager, N.F. Railwatys, Dimapur and the proforma opposite party was represented by Assistant Manager and Research Officer, Loktak Down Stream H.E. Project, Manipur. Letters demanding payment of license fees that is due were written to the proforma opposite party No.1 which is placed at Annexure-C. On 18-10-2004, the plot of land was measured by the parties i.e. Assistant Divisional Manager, N.F. Railwatys, Dimapur and the proforma opposite party was represented by Assistant Manager and Research Officer, Loktak Down Stream H.E. Project, Manipur. Copy of the measurement is annexed as Annexure-D. 4. In the year 2007, the appellants came to know that Shri Lhoutuo Loucu/opposite party No.4 claimed that he is the owner of the said plot of land as the State Government has given Patta No. 795 (NEW), Blcok No. 07, Dag No. 810/840, Mauza No. 02, Dimapur Town. Having come to know this, the appellants by a letter dated 27-07-2007 which is marked as Annexure-E highlighted the status of the said plot of land and requested the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur to pass necessary order for ownership of the said plot of land in favour of the railways. The appellants thereafter, requested the Land Records and Survey Officer, Dimapur to furnish details of the record occupied by the railways to which the LRSO, Dimapur informed the appellants that the railways land at Dimapur is located under Dag No. 25 and Block No.7 but in the Chita Records it is mentioned as Government under remark column and it is also written as Reserved for Government purpose. The letter dated 12-03-2010 is annexed as Annexure-F. Inspite of the request made by the appellants, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur did not take any action. In the meantime, the opposite party No.4 had forcefully occupied the said plot of land. 5. The appellants again submitted a letter dated 27-04-2010 to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur requesting to issue necessary order to evict opposite party No.4. Copy of the letter dated 27-04-2010 is marked as Annexure-G. In the meantime, the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Power, Government of India wrote a D.O. letter No.11/5/2009-NHPC dated 07-02-2011 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur requesting to convene a meeting with the representative of NHPC, N.F. Railways, District Administration and Shri. Lhoutuo Loucii, the opposite party No.4 for resolving the dispute. From the said letter, it is evident that the opposite party No.4 had been making representations to the Ministry of Power claiming land rent from NHPC for the period 01-04-1995 to 31-07-2006 for using the land in question for storage purpose by the Loktak Power Project. Copy of the letter dated 07-02-2011 is annexed as Annexure-H. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner passed an ex-parte order dated 06-07- 2011 which is annexed as Annexure-I under Order No.LD-1/2001-D/1/3108-11 dated 06-07-2011 as under :- "Therefore I am of the view that Mrs. Lhoutuo Loucii W/o Shri Lhoutuo Loucii has a right to claim rent over the plot of land measuring 01-B-03K-05Ls w.e.f. 01-04-1985 which is in occupation of NHPC since 01-04-1985, therefore, the petitioner has the right to claim rent w.e.f. the date as stated above." 6. Aggrieved by the ex-parte order, the respondent No.1, the NHPC filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C praying for setting aside the ex-parte order. The learned Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur was pleased to admit the said application and directed all parties to file written argument. Accordingly, the appellants has submitted gist of objection/argument wherein, the appellants has categorically stated that the N.F. Railways has absolute right and title over the land in question and prayed for setting aside the ex-parte order and to allow the appellants to file written statement. Objection and argument dated 02-07-2012 of the appellants is contained in Annexure-J. However, without allowing the appellants to file written statement and setting aside the ex-parte order dated 06- 07-2011, the learned Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur had disposed of the matter vide Order No. LD2001-D/1/11126 dated 17-08-2012 which read as under:- " For the above observation, I am of the view that Shri Lhoutuo Loucu is the rightful owner of the land in question to which he is entitled to receive rent from NHPC Ltd. For the total period of its occupation of the land on rental basis, thus the NHPC Ltd is hereby directed to pay the outstanding rent to Shri Lhoutuo Loucu at the rate as agreed upon within the earliest possible time." 7. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur dated 17-08-2012, the appellants is before this Court on the grounds that :- (1) the impugned order dated 17-08-2012 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur declaring ownership of land in question in favour of the opposite party No.4 without allowing the appellants to file written statement without framing any issue and without adducing any evidence is not sustainable in the eye of the law. Therefore, the order dated 17-08-2012 is liable to be quashed and set aside. (2) The learned Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur had totally ignored the gist of objection filed by the appellants along with the relevant materials on record in passing the impugned order is bad in law. (3) That there was no proper proceeding at all before the learned Deputy Commissioner, while passing the said impugned order dated 17-08-2012 The learned Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur had decided the disputed question of facts mechanically and capriciously as such, the impugned order dated 17-08-2012 is liable to quash and set aside. (4) That the Sale Deed between Shri. Vita Angami and Shri Lhoutuo Loucu/respondent No.4 contained in Annexure-A/5 is not enforceable in law as the sale was executed in violation of the conditions of the patta issued by order dated 05-09-2002. The Sale Deed is null and void and the right of respondent No.4 is extinguished and he cannot claim right over the title of the land. 8. Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that the respondents were not aware of the so called transaction or agreement between the N.F. Railways and the opposite party No.4 for allotment and license of a plot measuring 24000 sq.ft i.e. 1.66 bighas to M M/S Loktak H.E. Project, Imphal. However, by a letter dated 12-03-2010 which is contained in Annexure-F of the appeal, the Land Records and Survey Officer, Dimapur wrote to the Divisional Engineer, N.F. Railways, Lumding that the railways land at Dimapur is located under Dag. No. 25 and Block No.7. But in the Chitha Records, it is mentioned as Government and under Remark column, it is also mentioned as reserved for Government purpose. It is to be noted that the matter concerning land are handled by the Land Records and Survey Officer which is being relied upon while exercise being conducted concerning the lands. No. 25 and Block No.7. But in the Chitha Records, it is mentioned as Government and under Remark column, it is also mentioned as reserved for Government purpose. It is to be noted that the matter concerning land are handled by the Land Records and Survey Officer which is being relied upon while exercise being conducted concerning the lands. The said land in question is reserved for Government purpose but it does not fall under the Railways since the report clearly indicates that the status of the land in question does not belong to the Railways, no further steps were necessitated. The Ministry of Power, Government of India by letter dated 07-02-2011 which is contained in Annexure-H, page 26 of the appeal memo wrote letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur to convene a meeting with representatives of NHPC, NF Railways, District Administration and Shri. Lhoutuo Loucii for resolving the dispute of claiming land rent from NHPC for the period 01- 04-1985 to 31-07-2006. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur invited all interested parties in the matter on several occasions. However, the N.F. Railways and the NHPC failed to appear inspite of several notices issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur and accordingly, Shri. Lhoutuo Loucii was heard and all his relevant records were examined and found that the documents were all in favour of Shri. Lhoutuo Loucii and passed the order dated 06-07-2011 which is contained in Annexure-I page 27 of the appeal memo. The order reads as under:- GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DIMAPUR : NAGALAND O R D E R Dt. Dimapur the th July11 No.LD-1/2011-D/1/ Mrs. Lhoutou Loucii present in my court today. None of the representative from NHPC Loktak Power Project and N.R. Railway Lumding present inspite of several notices. This mater is a long pending dispute as regard to payment of land Rent by the NHPC to the rightful land owner which requires expeditious disposal. Therefore the undersigned in response to the Government of India, Ministry of Power letter No. D.O. No.11/5/2009-NHPC dated New Delhi the 7th Feb 2011, heard Mrs. Loucii at length and perused all the relevant records available in file and satisfied. On perusal of the records, it is evident that a plot of land measuring 01B-03K-05Ls is owned by Mrs. Therefore the undersigned in response to the Government of India, Ministry of Power letter No. D.O. No.11/5/2009-NHPC dated New Delhi the 7th Feb 2011, heard Mrs. Loucii at length and perused all the relevant records available in file and satisfied. On perusal of the records, it is evident that a plot of land measuring 01B-03K-05Ls is owned by Mrs. Lhotou Loucii as per patta No. 795 at Block No.7, Dag No. 810/840 as mutated vide its mutation case No.N-655/02 dt. 28/01/03. The right of original owner of the land in dispute vide its sale deed which is registered as SD-638/02 dated 19/12/2002. It is also evident from the record that the allotment of land in question is with due approval from the Government of Nagaland, Department of Land Revenue vide its order No.LR/11-5/2002 dt.3rd June02. However, Mrs. Lhoutuo Loucii W/o Shri. Lhoutou Loucii is in occupation of the said land since 1968. Therefore I am of the view that Mrs. Lhoutou Loucii W/o Shri. Lhoutuo Loucii has a right to claim rent over the plot of land measuring 01B-03K-05Ls w.e.f. 01/04/1985 which is in occupation of NHPC since 01/04/1985, therefore the petitioner has the right to claim rent w.e.f. the date as stated above. This case disposed accordingly in my open court on 5th July, 2011. Sd/ MAONG AIER Deputy Commissioner Dimapur, Nagaland 9. Furthermore, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate contended that it was only the NHPC who filed an application under Order 9 rule 13 before the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 03-06-2011 on the ground that proper opportunity of hearing was not given to the parties and passed the ex-parte order. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur admitted the application, the parties were summoned, heard in person by giving ample opportunity and directed all parties to submit gist of objection/arguments and N.F. Railways filed its gist which is contained in Annexure-G page 28 of the appeal memo. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur admitted the application, the parties were summoned, heard in person by giving ample opportunity and directed all parties to submit gist of objection/arguments and N.F. Railways filed its gist which is contained in Annexure-G page 28 of the appeal memo. The Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur after due consideration of all the documents which is contained in Annexure-K at page 30 of the appeal memo passed the order which reads as under:- GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DIMAPUR : NAGALAND No.LD-1/2001-D/1/11126 Dated the 17th August 2012 O R D E R An application under order 9 Rule 13 of the Procedure Code received from the Manager (Civil) NHPC Loktak Power station Komkeirap Manipur through learned counsel Shri B.P. Paul Advocate and associates. The petitioner in his petition prayed for setting aside of the order dated 06.07.2011 passed by this Court on the ground that proper opportunity of hearing was not given to the parties and passed the order Ex-party. Perused the petition, satisfied and admitted, accordingly both the parties involved in the case were summoned, heard in person by giving ample opportunities and thereafter filed written arguments from all the parties. On hearing the parties in detail and on perusal the written arguments and the relevant records in file, it is observed that a plot of land measuring 01B-03K-05L covered by Patta No. 795 at Block No.7 Dimapur town owned by Shri Lhoutuo Loucu was occupied on rental basis by Loktak Hydro Electric Project (NHPC Ltd) w.e.f. 01.04.1985 to July, 2005 at a certain agreed rent rates. Later on, the NHPC Ltd vacated the land in the year 2005 which was immediately taken possession by Shri. Lhoutou Loucu. It is also evident from the record that, on failure on the part of the NHPC Ltd to pay the rent, Shri. Lhoutou Loucu had presented several representations and petitions to various authorities to which the Honble High Court as well as this Court with several orders directed the NHPC Ltd. To pay the outstanding rent to Shri. Lhoutou Loucu. It is also evident from the record that, on failure on the part of the NHPC Ltd to pay the rent, Shri. Lhoutou Loucu had presented several representations and petitions to various authorities to which the Honble High Court as well as this Court with several orders directed the NHPC Ltd. To pay the outstanding rent to Shri. Lhoutou Loucu. The record further speaks that this Court by its findings on various counts vide its observation dated 20.07.2004, 27.10.2004, 08.11.2007 and finally vide its order dated 06.07.2011 that the land in question was absolutely belongs to Shri. Lhoutou Loucu to which he has right to claim the rent from NHPC Ltd. On the other hand there is no dispute on the part of the NHPC Ltd. that it had occupied that land in question during the above specified period. Now, therefore to decide the point in hand is to whom the rent is to be paid. To decide the above point the NF Railways which claims right to be the owner of the disputed plot could not substantiate its claim who could not destroy the documentary evidences produced by Shri. Lhoutou Loucu. It is also worth mentioning that when the NHPC Ltd vacated the said land Shri. Lhoutou reclaimed the land and occupied the same which was not objected by NF Railways. The record further indicates that the land in question was duly acquired by Shri. Lhoutou after due approval of the government. From the above observation, I am of the view that Shri Lhoutou Loucu is the rightful owner of the land in question to which he is entitled to receive rent from NHPC Ltd. for the total period of its occupation of the land on rental basis. Thus the NHPC Ltd. is directed to pay the outstanding rent to Shri. Lhoutou Loucu at the rate as agreed upon within the earliest possible time. This disposes the matter accordingly. Issue extract copy of this order to all concern. No.LD-1/2001-D/1/11126 Dated the 17th August 2012 ( N. HUSHILI SEMA, I.A.S.) Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, Nagaland 10. Learned Additional Senior Government Advocate Ms. This disposes the matter accordingly. Issue extract copy of this order to all concern. No.LD-1/2001-D/1/11126 Dated the 17th August 2012 ( N. HUSHILI SEMA, I.A.S.) Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, Nagaland 10. Learned Additional Senior Government Advocate Ms. V. Suokhrie also contended that both the orders dated 06-07-2011 and 17-08-2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur was the result of petition moved by the proforma opposite party i.e. NHPC Ltd but not by the present appellants i.e. the N.F. Railways which indicates that the present appellants is not serious or in other words not interested in the proceeding. However, taking serious note at the late stage appears to be questionable which must be discouraged in the interest of justice. It is also reiterated that the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur was in the best interest of justice by giving amply opportunity to the parties involves in the case. Therefore, the N.F. Railways has failed to make out a case and she has prayed that the appeal may be dismissed. 11. Mr. N.K. Luikham, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.4 at the initial point submits that the present appeal is not maintainable on the ground that it is not in conformity to Rule 29 of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland Act, 1984 or under Article 227 of the Constitution. He argues that the appeal lies under Order 43, rule-1 read with Section 104 (1) (i) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Secondly, he contends that the applicant has no locus standi to file the instant appeal challenging the order dated 17-08-2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur because of the fact that the appellants did not file any application for setting aside the order dated 06- 07-2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur. The impugned order dated 17-08-2012 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur on the application filed by the M/s Loktak H.E. Project. It is not on the motion of the present appellants. 12. Thirdly, the appellants have not challenged the order dated 06-07-2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur wherein, the learned Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur has clearly passed the order holding that Shri. Lhoutuo Loucii is the rightful owner of the land and has right to claim the rent which is annexed at Annexure-I page 27 of the appeal memo. 12. Thirdly, the appellants have not challenged the order dated 06-07-2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur wherein, the learned Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur has clearly passed the order holding that Shri. Lhoutuo Loucii is the rightful owner of the land and has right to claim the rent which is annexed at Annexure-I page 27 of the appeal memo. He argues that when a particular remedy is provided for setting aside the ex-parte decree under Order 9, Rle-13 of the C.P.C. and when plea under the said provision fails and appeal is specifically provided under Order 43, Rule-1 (d) of C.P.C. against an order of the trial Court refusing to set aside the ex-parte decree. These remedies alone and none other can be taken resort to. Therefore, when these remedies have not been availed of in an appeal under Section 96 (2) or in the second appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C., no ground can be entertained that the ex-parte proceedings were wrongly taken against the appellants which resulted in passing of the ex-parte decree. Reliance is placed in the case of Smti. Maya Devi & Ors.-vs-Mehria Gram Mill, Hissar & Ors, (1988) AIR(P&H) 176 (1), para-10. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Reliance Capital -vs- B. Agarwalla, (2006) 1 GauLT 199 , paras- 13 & 19 held that " An appeal under Section 96 (2) of C.P.C. against an ex-parte judgment cannot be converted into proceedings for setting aside the decree so as to afford opportunity to the party to adduce evidence on any ground that may be raised under Order 9, Rule-13 of the Code. Nor can an appeal be converted into one under Order 43, Rule-1 (d) of the Code. However, the defendants under appeal, can demonstrate on merits, that evidence adduced by the plaintiff on which ex-parte judgment and decree has been passed is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case to pass a decree or even as the evidence prima facie is deficient for passing the decree. Therefore, it is essential for this Court to satisfy itself as to whether the appellants have make out a case for setting aside the judgment and decree. Therefore, it is essential for this Court to satisfy itself as to whether the appellants have make out a case for setting aside the judgment and decree. It is also settled law that the High Court cannot interfere with the order of the trial court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India unless there was any error apparent on the face of the order as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K.V.S. Ram-vs-Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, (2015) 12 SCC 39 , para-12. Therefore, he contends the present appeal is not maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution. 13. Besides, the technicalities involved in the appeal, the ground taken by the respondent No.4 and the actual facts leading to his claim over the land are summarized by the learned counsel as hereunder:- that one Shri. Vita Angami, a resident of Tenyiphe Village, District-Dimapur was in occupation of Government waste land measuring 03 Bighas-04 Khathas-10 Lessas, of Block No.7 under Dag No. 25 Dimapur Town since the year 1998. The above mentioned land was settled by the Government in 1980 in the name of 18 persons. Aggrieved by the action of the State Government, said Vita Angami filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 1689/199, W.P. (C) No. 27 (K) of 2000 before the Hon'ble High Court. By judgment and order dated 10-09-2001, the Hon'ble High Curt observed that Shri. Vita Angami has been in occupation over the land from the year 1968 and his prayer for regularization was recommended by the respondent No.5 after taking into consideration the various documents. His case was accordingly directed to be considered for regularization in accordance with the rules and regulations of the State Government. The judgment and order dated 10-09-2001 is annexed as Annexure-A/1 of the affidavit-in-opposition. The outcome of the judgment was communicated to the Divisional Railway Manager, N.E.F.R, Lumding, Assam by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur to submit objection if any in regularizing the land in favour of Shri. Vita Angami. However, as no reply was received from the Railway authority, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur passed the order of settlement dated 05-09-2002 in respect of the land measuring an area of 03 Bighas-04 Khathas-10 Lessas, under Dag No. 25, Block No. 7, Dimapur Town in the name of Shri. Vita Angami. However, as no reply was received from the Railway authority, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur passed the order of settlement dated 05-09-2002 in respect of the land measuring an area of 03 Bighas-04 Khathas-10 Lessas, under Dag No. 25, Block No. 7, Dimapur Town in the name of Shri. Vita Angami. The said entry was made in the records of rights and Jamabandi issued bearing Patta No. 765, Dag No. 810 of Block No. 7, Dimapur Town Mouza No.2. Annexure-A/2 is the letter dated 10-12-2001 to N.F. Railway, Annexure-A/3 is the order of settlement and Annexure-A/4 is the Jamabandi copy annexed with the affidavit-in-opposition. 14. Thereafter, the plot of land measuring an area of 01Bigha-03 Khathas-05 Lessas was sold by Shri. Vita Angami out of the said settled land to Shri. Lhoutuo Loucu with the following boundaries:- North:- land of Shri. Vita Angami, South:- Land of D.P. Angami, East:- Railway land, West:- Natural Nallah. Annexure-A/5 is the sale deed and Annexure-A/6 is the Jamabandi copy bearing Patta No. 795, Dag No. 810/840, Block No. 7, Dimapur Town, Mouza No.2. Having secured his right over the land, the opposite party No.4 claimed rent from NHPC Ltd., Loktak H.E. Project, Imphal, however, the NHPC Ltd. refused to pay the rent and raised dispute. Therefore, the opposite party No.4 approached the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur for spot verification of his patta land. Accordingly, the Land Records and Survey Officer, Dimapur surveyed the land and submitted the report dated 01-02-2003 to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur. The verification report specifically stated that the land measuring an area of 1B-3K-5L covered by Patta No. 795, under Dag No. 810/840 of Block No.7, Dimapur Town is standing in the name of Shri. Lhoutuo Loucu as per revenue records. Annexure-A/7 is the spot verification report of LRSO dated 01-02-2003. Despite this, the NHPC refused to pay the rent and hence, the opposite party No.4 was compelled to file a writ petition bearing W.P. (C) 217 (K) of 2005 before the Hon'ble High Court wherein, the Hon'ble High Court had directed the petitioner to file representation to the NHPC Ltd., the present proforma opposite party for consideration of the grievances of the petitioner/respondent No.4. Annexure-A/8 is the order dated 18-08-2005 passed by the Hon'ble High Court. 15. Annexure-A/8 is the order dated 18-08-2005 passed by the Hon'ble High Court. 15. Representation was submitted by the respondent No.4 before the Ministry of Power, Government of India for payment of arrears of land rent by the NHPC Ltd. Loktak H.E. Project for the land occupied since 01-04-1985 to June, 2005. Thereafter, by a letter dated 07-02-2011, the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Power, Government of India requested the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur to resolve the dispute by convening a meeting with the representatives of NHPC Ltd., N.F. Railway, District Administration and Shri. Lhoutuo Loucu which is contained in Annexure-H of the appeal memo. The Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur issued several notices to the NHPC Ltd as well as to the N.F. Railway but they failed to appear. Upon failure of the NHPC Ltd. and N.F. Railway, after hearing Shri. Lhoutuo Loucu and on perusal of all the relevant records being satisfied, passed the order dated 06-07-2011 "Annexure-I to the appeal memo". 16. Consequently, the NHPC Ltd./opposite party filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C. before the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur praying for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 06-07-2011 on the ground that opportunity of being heard was not given to the parties and passed the order ex-parte. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur admitted the application, the parties were summoned, heard in person by giving ample opportunity and directed all the parties to submit gist of argument. The N.F. Railway filed gist of argument. Annexure-J of the appeal memo. The Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur upon consideration of the materials on record passed the impugned order dated 17-08-2012 (Annexure-K to the appeal memo) It is argued that the order dated 06-07-2011 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur after taking into consideration the judgment and order dated 10-09-2001 passed by the Hon'ble High Court. The land settlement/allotment order dated 05-09- 2002 was issued as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court and the land patta of the respondent No.4/opposite party No.4 (Shri. Lhoutuo Loucu) falls within the land settled/allotted. Furthermore, the survey report dated 01-02-2003 submitted by the LSRO, Dimapur in respect of land of the respondent No.4/opposite party clearly proved that the land measuring an area of 01B-03K-05 Ls covered by Patta No. 795, under Dag No. 810/840, Block No.7, Dimapur Town stands recorded in the name of Shri. Lhoutuo Loucu i.e. the respondent No.4. Furthermore, the survey report dated 01-02-2003 submitted by the LSRO, Dimapur in respect of land of the respondent No.4/opposite party clearly proved that the land measuring an area of 01B-03K-05 Ls covered by Patta No. 795, under Dag No. 810/840, Block No.7, Dimapur Town stands recorded in the name of Shri. Lhoutuo Loucu i.e. the respondent No.4. Therefore, the respondent No.4 being the rightful owner of the land claimed rent from NHPC Ltd with effect from 01-04-1995 upto 30-06-2005 at the agreed rate and the same was duly considered by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur and the order was issued on 06- 07-2011. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes & Ors-vs-Arasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead) through LRs,2013 5 SCC 370 (Para-63) held that:- "Para- 63. Possession is important when there are no title documents and other relevant records before the Court, but, once the documents and records of title come before the court, it is the title which has to be looked at first and due weightage be given to it. Possession cannot be considered in vacuum." Thus, it is respectfully submitted that reopening of the concluded transaction or settled title all over again would create chaotic situation and jeopardize the ends of justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maya Devi (Dead) through LRs-vs-Raj Kumari Batra (Dead) through LRs & ors, (2010) 9 SCC 486 (Para-31) held that:- "Para-31. In the present case the appellate court appears to have decided against remanding the matter to the Single Judge on the ground of absence of reasons in the order passed by the latter because any such remand would have only prolonged the agony of the parties. From a reading of the impugned order of the appellate court it is clear that the appellate court was conscious of the fact that the litigation had been prolonged for many years. It is therefore, decided to resolve the matter on merits rather than remitting the same back for a fresh disposal by the learned Single Judge. In as much as the appellate court adopted that approach it did not, in our opinion, commit any mistake to warrant our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. It is therefore, decided to resolve the matter on merits rather than remitting the same back for a fresh disposal by the learned Single Judge. In as much as the appellate court adopted that approach it did not, in our opinion, commit any mistake to warrant our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The litigation between the parties having continued for three decades, the discretion vested in the appellate court and was rightly exercised by it. The submissions made by Mr. Kapoor that the appellate court ought to have remitted the matter back to Single Judge must, therefore, fail and are hereby rejected." Therefore, tracing the history records, it is clear that the N.F. Railways was not at all interested in the proceeding earlier. Passive attitude of the N.R. Railways resulted in the order dated 06-07-2011 and also the order dated 17-08-2012. Conduct of the appellants taking steps at a very belated stage would be contrary to the above cited rulings of the Apex Court. 17. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.4 also contends that the appellants have no documentary proof of ownership of the land in question. The mutilated Trace Map (Annexure-A) is not a title deed. Annexur-B is not a document as the addressee and the signatory is the same person/officer, there is no Dag No and description of the land mentioned. Annexure-C is relied upon to claim licence fee but Annexure-C does not mention about the licence. Annexure-D did not mention about agreement of licence. The deed of occupation of land mentioned as on 12-04-1978 in Annexure-C contradicts the date of occupation of the land mentioned in Annexure-D as on 01-04-1979. The purported joint measurement carried out between the Railway authority and NHPC Ltd is not approved by the District Revenue Authority. Annexure-E has no relevancy as the appellants/N.F. Railways could not produce title document over the patta land of the respondent No.4. Annexure-F clearly pointed out that the land under Dag No.25 and Block No.7 is recorded as reserved for Government purpose. Annexure-G has no relevancy in view of the fact that the N.F. Railway has no title document over the patta land of Shri. Lhoutuo Loucu. Annexure-F clearly pointed out that the land under Dag No.25 and Block No.7 is recorded as reserved for Government purpose. Annexure-G has no relevancy in view of the fact that the N.F. Railway has no title document over the patta land of Shri. Lhoutuo Loucu. Annexure-H is the letter of the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Power, Government of India written to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur on the basis of the representation submitted by Shri. Lhoutuo Loucu as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court for settlement of the issue of rent. He has therefore argued that the documents upon which the appellants seeks to claim ownership over the patta land of respondent No.4 are fabricated and bogus documents and are liable to be rejected. 18. For all the above stated arguments, the order dated 17-08-2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur is well reasoned and justified in view of the fact the parties in dispute were given ample opportunity of being heard. Grounds of appeal are not tenable in law as well as facts and is liable to be rejected. Learned counsel argued that the present first appeal deserves to be dismissed. 19. Appearing for the proforma opposite party, Mr. P.B. Paul submits that the proforma opposite party i.e. Loktak, H.E. Project present NHPC was leased/licensed out a plot of land situated at Dimapur by the N.F. Railway Authority vide letter No. W/338/1/DMV dated 04-11-1972 for the purpose of stacking heavy materials and erection of gentry for loading and unloading activities. The proforma opposite party entered into possession of the land measuring 24, 000 sq.ft i.e. 1.66 Bigha against the licence fee of Rs. 2187/- which includes supervision charge of erection of gentry. The proforma opposite party license fee till 1978 and in that context, the railway authority claimed area lease premium along with damaged charges and conservancy charges of Rs. 45,12,395/- from 01-04- 1979 to 31-03-2005 vide letter NO.W/214/LMG/NHPC/LokTak/W-4/3275 dated 17-12-2004. It was during 2007, the opposite party No.4, Shri. Lhoutuo Loucii started claiming rent from the proforma opposite party stating inter alia as the owner of the land. The issue was agitated before the Deputy Commissioner of Nagaland wherein the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur vide ex-parte order dated 06- 07-2011 passed by the order in favour of Mrs. Lhoutuo Loucii W/o Lhoutuo Loucii. The issue was agitated before the Deputy Commissioner of Nagaland wherein the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur vide ex-parte order dated 06- 07-2011 passed by the order in favour of Mrs. Lhoutuo Loucii W/o Lhoutuo Loucii. The opposite party filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 but the Deputy Commissioner directed the parties to file written objection if any and by order dated 17-08-2012 directed the NHPC, the proforma opposite party to make payment of outstanding rent to Lhoutuo Loucii at the rate as agreed upon within the earliest possible time. The N.F. Railway and the respondent No.4 i.e. Lhoutuo Loucii are both demanding rent from the proforma opposite party for the same plot of land. As such, until and unless title about the land is settled the proforma opposite party is not in a position to determine as to whom the rent should be paid. He has also submitted that NHPC Ltd. had on no occasion entered into lease agreement with the respondent No.4 i.e. Lhoutuo Loucii but with the N.F. Railway. But owing to the dispute, the NHPC Ltd. is unable to pay the rent to either parties. He has therefore, submitted that the dispute of title has to be settled first. 20. I have considered the submissions of the parties. 21. The first ground of objection raised by the respondents is that the appeal is not maintainable under Rule 29 of the Rules of Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland (Third Amendment) Act, 1984 or under Article 227 of the Constitution. If the spirit of C.P.C. is to be applied in its totality, the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 is unquestionable as it is clear that appeal lies against ex-parte order under provision of Order 43 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. However, the position of the matter with regard to civil suit in the State of Nagaland stands at a totally different footing and must be answered accordingly. I am also not in agreement with the argument submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 that appeal is not admissible under Rule 29 (1) of the Rules of Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland. I am also not in agreement with the argument submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 that appeal is not admissible under Rule 29 (1) of the Rules of Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland. Rule 29 (1) of the Rules of Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland is amended in 1984 which reads as follows:- " Rule 29 (1) An appeal shall lie to the Deputy Commissioner against the decision of any of his assistants and to the High Court against the original decision of the Deputy Commissioner, if the value of the suit be Rs.500/- or over, or of right to or possession of immovable property; Provided that a petition of appeal accompanied by a copy of the order appealed against and by a clear statement of the grounds of appeals be filed within 30 days from the date of decision of excluding the time required for obtaining a copy of the decision. Provided further that the appeal may be admitted after the aforesaid period of 30 days, if the appellant satisfied the appellate court that he has sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period." 22. The above position is very clear and it finds support of the ruling of our own High Court in the case of The Registrar General, Gauhati High Court-vs-Union of India and Ors.,2013 2 GauLT 1109, wherein, in paras 32 and 33 of the said judgment which provides as under:- " 32. It is, thus, clear that if legislative intent is to bar applicability of CPC and CrPc to customary courts or courts manned by executive officers, the said bar cannot be held to be applicable to regular courts. This interpretation will be harmonious with the functioning of regular courts under the Civil Courts Act and also customary or executive courts under the Administration of Justice Rules. Accordingly, we hold that the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 is applicable to the districts of Dimahasao and Karbianglong in the State of Assam and the State of Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland. 33. Accordingly, we hold that the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 is applicable to the districts of Dimahasao and Karbianglong in the State of Assam and the State of Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland. 33. We further hold that CPC and CrPc are applicable to the regularly constituted civil and criminal courts without any manner affecting operation of Article 371A or the functioning of village, customary or any other courts other than the regularly constituted civil and criminal courts in the State of Nagaland manned by members of judicial service." 23. From the above judgment of the Division Bench which has not been assailed till date, it is clear that for Administration of Justice, 37 shall apply side by side with the provision of C.P.C. in the State of Nagaland. With respect to administration of civil side, rule 29 which has been already referred to hereinabove clearly provides that appeal shall lie from the order of the Deputy Commissioner to the High Court. Furthermore, the said position is supported by Rule 35 of the Rules of Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, 1937 which provides as follows:- " 35. The High court and courts of Deputy Commissioner and his assistants shall be guided by the spirit, but not be bound by the letter of the code of Civil Procedure." 24. It is suggestive that the spirit of C.P.C. may be applied while administration of civil justice in the State of Nagaland by the Deputy Commissioner and the High Court, however, it may not be followed in letter. Thus, the argument that ex-parte order may be challenged only in terms of the Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C. is not acceptable in matters relating to civil appeal in the State of Nagaland. The problems before us is that when the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant to Deputy Commissioner conduct civil cases in their respective courts, there is no provision under 37 Act which provides that preferring an appeal against ex-parte order. The only provision which is provided is under Rule 29 (1) of the Rules of Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland and the appellants has followed the same. Therefore, the argument that the appellants have over looked the provision of Order 43 Rule 1 cannot be applied in the State of Nagaland, lest it should result in miscarriage of justice. 25. Therefore, the argument that the appellants have over looked the provision of Order 43 Rule 1 cannot be applied in the State of Nagaland, lest it should result in miscarriage of justice. 25. Pertaining to the second contention which has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 stating that the appellants has no locus standi to file the instant appeal challenging the order dated 17-08-2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur in view of the fact that the appellants did not file any application for setting aside the order dated 06-07-2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, the contention is not well founded considering that both the parties were given ample opportunity to file their response prior to the passing of the impugned order. Both the respondents have taken the plea that the N.F. Railway has filed its gist of argument/objection which is contained in Annexure-G page 28 of the appeal memo where they have submitted objection/argument before the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur. Both have argued that ample opportunity were given calling the concerned authority and after hearing the parties, the impugned order dated 17-08-2012 contained in Annexure-K page 30 to the appeal memo was passed. Therefore, the argument submitted by the parties are contrary to what they claimed. In any case of the mater, the land in question whether holding the right legal title or not is being contested by the present appellants, the N.F. Railway. Hence, the antecedental right which is in question must be answered by way of first establishing the true title. It is clear from records that the NHPC Ltd. was leased out a plot of land by the N.F. Railway on 04-11-1972 vide letter No.W/338/1/DMV and no way there is either mention of the name of respondent No.4 nor mention of the first patta holder of the land in question Mr. Vita Angami coming to an agreement of lease with the NHPC Ltd. Hence, it is clear that the appellants have the locus standi to file the present appeal. It has been admitted by the respondents that the appellants has been asked to file written gist and objection before passing of the impugned order which is contained in Annexure-G which demonstrate that the present appellants was part of the proceeding before the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur before the said impugned order dated 17-08-2012 was passed. It has been admitted by the respondents that the appellants has been asked to file written gist and objection before passing of the impugned order which is contained in Annexure-G which demonstrate that the present appellants was part of the proceeding before the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur before the said impugned order dated 17-08-2012 was passed. The appellants are admittedly the legal entity who came into jural relationship with the NHPC Ltd. and on that strength, he is the presumed legal owner of the land in question. Therefore, he has the locus standi. I am unable to accept the plea that the appellants did not file application under Order 9 Rule 13 before the Deputy Commissioner, therefore, the appellants has lost his right to file the present appeal. As already stated, the civil proceedings under the 1937 Rules have wider connotations than is contained under the C.P.C. 26. The third objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 is also answered by stating that there is no provision under the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland Act, 1937 for filing an appeal against the order of ex-parte passed by the Deputy Commissioner in the State of Nagaland except but to resort to the provision of Rule 29 (1). With regard to exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution which provides for supervision of the lower courts by the High Court, the present appeal may not be appropriate. However, there is remedy under Rule 29 the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland and appeal can be preferred against the order of Deputy Commissioner before the High Court under the said Rules including ex-parte orders. 27. Tracing the history of the land in question emanating from Shri. Vita Angami and the litigation involved by Shri. Vita Angami in W.P. (C) 1689/1999, W.P. (C) No. 27 (K) of 2000 before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court which was disposed of on 10-09-2001 and also the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 217 (K) of 2005 filed before the Gauhati High Court which was disposed of on 18-08-2005, the present appellants was not a party. The claim of the respondents that their rights were established over the title of the land by the above mentioned decisions are not legally enforceable against the present appellants who were not a party. The claim of the respondents that their rights were established over the title of the land by the above mentioned decisions are not legally enforceable against the present appellants who were not a party. The contention of the respondents that the appellants was sleeping over the right is somewhat misplaced having considered the letter dated 26-07-2007 which was written by the Divisional Engineer,/IV for Divisional Railway Manager (Works) N.F. Railway, Lumding clearly depicts that the respondent No.4 was claiming the land of the Railways and a notice has been issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur to vacate the land to NHPC Ltd. vide his letter dated 27- 07-2007. Again, another letter written on 26-04-2010 which is contained at Annexure-G of the appeal memo was written by the Divisional Engineer/IV to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur for removal of encroachment from Railway land at Dimapur encroached by Shri. Lhoutuo Loucii and Smti. Ate.Z. Loucii. The letter clearly depicts that the land was occupied by force with arms. Thereafter, the appellants have filed gist of objection before the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur dated 02-07-2012 which is self-explanatory and contained at Annexure-J. The written objection is reproduced below which is self explanatory for clarity:- " To, The Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur Sub:- Gist of objection in the case of Mr. Lhoutou Loucu Vrs. NHPC Ltd Ref: Vide No.LD-1/201-D/1/3108-11 Respected Madam, In compliance to the order dated 22.06.2012 in the above referred matter, I beg to submit herewith the gist of objection/argument for and on behalf of the NF Railway for your kind perusal and necessary action please as under:- 1. At the outset I beg to highlight the status of the land in question where Mr. Lhoutou Loucu allegedly claim rent from the NHPC Ltd. is that, the land had been in absolute possession of the NF Railway since the British-India period and the same was subsequently certified by the Sub-Divisional Collector Dimapur in the year 1964 which is substantiated by the Annexure-A 2. A portion of land measuring 21000 Sqft. Lhoutou Loucu allegedly claim rent from the NHPC Ltd. is that, the land had been in absolute possession of the NF Railway since the British-India period and the same was subsequently certified by the Sub-Divisional Collector Dimapur in the year 1964 which is substantiated by the Annexure-A 2. A portion of land measuring 21000 Sqft. of the said certified land of NF Railway was let out to NHPC Ltd. Loktak Power Station Komkurap Manipur in 1972, Annexure-B is the documentary evidence substantiating the letting out of the land in question by the NF Railway to NHPC Ltd. As such, the NHPC Ltd. is a mere Lesses who has no title and right to negotiate with any third party (s) in respect of the said land. 3. To substantiate the right of ownership over the said certified land the documents- Annexure-A & B are the vital documents where the land in question had been in absolute possession of the NF Railway and the same was certified by the Sub-Divisional Collector Dimapur in 1964. 4. In the light of above facts and circumstances, the NF Railway has absolute right and title over the land under lease, and therefore the ex parte order passed by the learned District Collector/Deputy Commissioner Dimapur, is liable to be set aside and modified and NF Railway may also be allowed to file its written statement inasmuch as the matter was proceeded ex parte for the ends of justice. Dt. 2nd July, 2012 Imti Imsong Adv. For NF Railway" Therefore, I am unable to accept the argument submitted by the respondents that the appellants were sleeping over their right and came before the Court at a belated stage. 28. From the reading of the arguments and also the documents placed before me, what emerges is that the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur was not at all sensitive to the complaint brought before its office and ignored the complaint presented by the Railways. The ex-parte order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur reads as "It is also worth mentioning that when the NHPC Ltd. vacated the said land Shri Lhoutou Loucii reclaimed the land and occupied the same which was not objected by the Railways". The ex-parte order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur reads as "It is also worth mentioning that when the NHPC Ltd. vacated the said land Shri Lhoutou Loucii reclaimed the land and occupied the same which was not objected by the Railways". In the order dated 17-08-2012 which is now impugned is in total contrast with the Annexure-E of the appeal memo and also Annexure-G dated 24-06-2010 both addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur that the Railway land was forcefully occupied by the respondent No.4. In the face of these two conflicting evidences one can only conclude that the Deputy Commissioner did not give proper hearing to the appellants/Railways and also their case was not considered as per the evidences on record. The Railways were in existence at Dimapur prior to the formation of our State and the documents related to the Railways may be difficult to decipher unless a fair chance is given to the authorities to prove the documents. The arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 that there are several inconsistencies in the documents of the appellants may be correct. However, from the records available, it clearly demonstrates that the written objection was rejected mechanically without examining the documents properly and hence such decisions is not sustainable under the law. The appellants did not have the opportunity to prove the documents at all. 29. I also find force in the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant who has argued that the sale deed itself is questionable since the present respondent No.4 had secured his legal right over the property in question by virtue of patta issued to Shri. Vita Angami, S/o Late Peselie of Tenyiphe Village, District-Dimapur which is contained in Annexure-A/3 and is reproduced herein below:- GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DIMAPUR DISTRICT HEARDQUARTER CHUMUKEDIMA CAMP-DIMAPUR NAGALAND O R D E R Dated, Dimapur 5th Sept, 2002 Shri/Smti. Vita Angami Son/Daughter of Shri/Smti.Late Peselie of Tenephe-I is hereby allowed settlemtn of a plot of land measuring 03 bighas 04 khatas 10 Ls in Dimapur town under block No.7 in part of Dag No. 25 on periodic lease basis on the following and conditions on payment of premium of Rs. 6497/- (Rupees six thousand four hundred ninety seven) only Old Rate. 1. The allottee shall take possession of the allotted land within 6 (six) months 2. 6497/- (Rupees six thousand four hundred ninety seven) only Old Rate. 1. The allottee shall take possession of the allotted land within 6 (six) months 2. Before construction the specification and the plan of building as per town and country planning should first be approved by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur 3. Sub-Letting of the plot or any part thereof is strictly prohibited 4. The allotted land shall be demarcated by the Revenue staff of the undersigned and possession of the land shall be handed over to the allottee only on receipt of the Treasury Challan showing deposit of the aforesaid premium and also the prescribed demarcation fees 5. Te allottee shall leave 4 (Four Feet) clan on footpath drain etc. 6. The allottee is to abide by all the terms and conditions stated in the para 7. Violation of any of the above terms and conditions will cause this settlement cancelled SD/- IMKONGTEMSU AO Deputy Commissioner Dimapur District Dimapur, Nagaland" 30. The argument of the learned counsel is that when the condition of issuing a patta to Shri. Vita Angami was with the condition that sub-letting of the plot or any part thereof is strictly prohibited. How was the sale deed contained at Annexure-A/5 between Shri. Vita Angami and Mr. Lhoutou Loucii recognized by the concerned authority. The sale deed contained in Annexure-A/5 was therefore a document which is legally not enforceable and a lot of explanation has to be made to justify the acceptance of such document which has been regularized against the condition of the allotment of patta of the original owner. The next issue which comes up before the Court is whether a jural relationship between the respondent No.4 and the NHPC Ltd. can be created by a subsequent order of the Court. It is clear from the records that the lease agreement was entered upon between NHPC Ltd. and the N.F. Railways. It has been agitated at the bar by the NHPC Ltd. that they have not entered into any agreement with the respondent No. 4. Therefore, we are unable to comprehend that under this situation rent may be paid to a person who has not come into an agreement with the lessee. Any new jural relationship cannot be established under such circumstances. If the title of the land is settled, it may have a different connotation. Therefore, we are unable to comprehend that under this situation rent may be paid to a person who has not come into an agreement with the lessee. Any new jural relationship cannot be established under such circumstances. If the title of the land is settled, it may have a different connotation. However, in our case we are concerned with the order which was passed ex-parte and the appellants were aggrieved over the declaration of a title by way of ex-parte order by disallowing the appellants a proper hearing. A disputed title cannot be settled by way of an ex-parte order unless the possessor can show that he has secured the title by the non-prosecution of the other party or parties. We also do not find that right has accrued to the respondent No.4 by way of the law of adverse possession as it can be clearly demonstrated from the records that up till 26-04-2010 the appellants Railways have been approaching the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur for eviction of the respondent No. 4. It would be against the principles of natural justice to disallow litigants a fair trial and dispose the matter ex-parte. The appellants were deprived of leading evidence and a fair trial. From the above finding, this Court is of the view that the title over the land is still disputed and to deny the appellants a fair trial would be against the principles of natural justice. The issue of rent which is in question now cannot be settled until and unless the title over the land is settled by allowing the parties to go for a fair trial and decide the title over the land. No antecedental right may be granted to either of the parties unless the title is established. 31. It is observed that the judgment and order dated 10-09-2000 passed in W.P. (C) 1689/1999, W.P. (C) No. 27 (K) of 2000 and also the order dated 18-08-2005 passed in W.P. (C) No. 217 (K) of 2005 were all passed without the representation of the present appellants and hence, these orders cannot be a hindrance to settle the title between the appellant and the respondents. 32. There are several questions which must be answered before the title can be given in favour of a party. 32. There are several questions which must be answered before the title can be given in favour of a party. If it is a fact that the wife of respondent No.4 was in occupation since 1968 as contained in the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur dated 05-07-2011. How was it possible for the Loktak to occupy the land in 1972 by way of lease agreement with the present appellants. Why so the respondent No. 4 did not object to the occupation by the NHPC Ltd.? There is no complaint from the respondent NO.4 or Mr. Vita before the appropriate authority on the matter which is suggestive that the respondent No.4 was never in occupation of the land in 1968 as contained in the order dated 05-07-2011 of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur. (2) No new jural relationship between NHPC Ltd. and the respondent No.4 can be created by the exparte order of a court without the parties having entered into lease agreement. Title is still in dispute and only after the title is settled the issue of rent can be allowed. (3) If the claim of the respondents are to be accepted that the petitioner was not a party to the suit, the next question that arises is "can title of a person be settled without his participation in a suit?" The answer is emphatic no. Owing to the procedural provisions which are inadequate under the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland Act, 1937 which governs the trial of civil cases in the State, a litigant must not be deprived of his rights to fair trial. The fact that there is no provision for appeal or revision from the ex-parte order of the Deputy Commissioner under 37 Rules is undisputed. In such circumstances, we have no other way to address the issue but either to resort to Rule 29 (1) of 1937 Rules or seek the indulgence of the Court to exercise its powers under Section 151 C.P.C. for the ends of justice. The appellant has appropriately moved the Court in the appropriate provision under Rule 29 (1). Furthermore, the Sale Deed as contained in Annexure-A/5 executed and accepted by the authority in violation of the conditions of the patta of the original patta holder Mr. Vita Angami also needs satisfactory explanation. 33. The appellant has appropriately moved the Court in the appropriate provision under Rule 29 (1). Furthermore, the Sale Deed as contained in Annexure-A/5 executed and accepted by the authority in violation of the conditions of the patta of the original patta holder Mr. Vita Angami also needs satisfactory explanation. 33. From the above finding, this Court is of the view that a fair trial should be allowed to settle the title. The appeal petition is allowed. Accordingly, the order dated 06-07-2011 and the order dated 07- 08-2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur are hereby set aside and quashed. Since the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur is in question, the appellants are directed to file a fresh suit to settle the title before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dimapur. The Court is also aware that the matter has been kept pending for a considerable period of time and direct that the matter may be disposed off within a period of six months from the date of filing of the plaint. 34. With the above observations and direction, the appeal is disposed of. 35. Remand back the records to the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dimapur for proper trial of the case to settle the title and also the antecedental right relating to the rent to be realized from the NHPC Ltd. on the outcome of the suit. 36. Considering the facts of the case there shall be no order for cost