Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 300 (GAU)

Bhanmati Devi v. State of Nagaland

2021-03-19

S.HUKATO SWU, SOUMITRA SAIKIA

body2021
ORDER : Soumitra Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. I. Imchen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.B. Paul, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3, 4 & 5 and Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel for the respondents No. 6, 7 & 8 and Mr. V. Zhimomi, learned Government Advocate appears for the respondents No. 1 & 2. 2. This writ appeal has been directed against the Order dated 24.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 64 (K)/2018. The ease projected before the learned Single Judge is that the private respondents as writ petitioners claimed to have purchased 19 Bighas of land from the year 2011 onwards. All the lands of the private respondents were covered by pattas, issued by the competent authority as per sale by the registered deed under the Indian Registration Act, 1908. The appellant who was arrayed as party respondent No. 3, claimed that a portion of the said land ought to have been settled with her as she was in possession from 1956 onwards. It was claimed by the respondent No. 3/appellant that she was illegally and unauthorizedly dispossessed and evicted, therefore, her rights over the land should be defined and her name be mutated/registered by the competent authority. 3. The appellant had filed an application before the Court of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur which was numbered as Land Case No. ___ of 2017. The appellant had filed the application under Section 53(A)(2), 54 read with Section 151 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, seeking cancellation of the pattas of the private respondents/writ petitioners over the plot of land measuring 4 Katha, 16 Lessas, at Block No. 7, Mouza- 2. The appellant claimed that the said plot of land in question belonged to her late husband and they were in possession since 1956 till they were illegally evicted in 2009. She, therefore, filed the application praying for inter alia that her name be recorded in the Revenue records in respect of that plot of land. She further prayed for issuance of land patta passbook in respect of land measuring 4 Kathas, 16 Lessas of land in Block No. 7 of Mouza- 2 and to put her back in possession. The Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur summoned the opposite parties by issuance of the proper summons and directed the parties to maintain the status quo. She further prayed for issuance of land patta passbook in respect of land measuring 4 Kathas, 16 Lessas of land in Block No. 7 of Mouza- 2 and to put her back in possession. The Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur summoned the opposite parties by issuance of the proper summons and directed the parties to maintain the status quo. The writ petitioners who were arrayed as respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 filed objections before the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur against the petition filed raising questions about the authenticity of the claims made by the appellant as well as the question of jurisdiction of the revenue court to decide the question of the title over the land. The Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur in view of the application and objections filed thereto directed the Subordinate Revenue Authorities to conduct verification and submit reports. 4. By order dated 23rd November, 2017, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur passed an order taking into account the various reports put up by the LRSO and upon hearing the parties directed the parties to maintain status quo. However, the question of the jurisdiction in respect of the whether the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur can entertain the application filed and decide on the issues, was referred by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur to the Government with special reference to the issue of the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court. Status quo was directed to be maintained by all the parties till such time the matter was disposed of by the Government and consequential instructions received from the Government 5. The writ petitioners, thereafter, filed the writ petition WP(C) No. 64(K)/2018 against the State and the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur and the present appellant as respondent No. 3, impugning the order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur. 6. Upon hearing learned counsels for the parties, this Court by order dated 24.07.2019 held that matters pertaining to Right, Title and Interest over land are required to be decided by competent courts of civil jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge referred to the Judgment of this Court in the case of Registrar General, Gauhati High Court Vs. Union of India reported in 2013 (4) GLT 1109, whereby a Division Bench of this Court held that there is no bar to the application of CPC in regular Courts functioning as Civil Courts under Civil Courts Act. The learned Single Judge referred to the Judgment of this Court in the case of Registrar General, Gauhati High Court Vs. Union of India reported in 2013 (4) GLT 1109, whereby a Division Bench of this Court held that there is no bar to the application of CPC in regular Courts functioning as Civil Courts under Civil Courts Act. The Division Bench held that the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 is applicable to the State of Nagaland and administration of justice rules applicable to the State of Nagaland will give way to the provisions of the Civil Courts Act, to the extent of inconsistency in relation to the functioning of Courts manned by members of the cadre of the judicial service. It was also held that the administration of justice by regularly constituted Courts manned by judicial officers will function as per the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887. 7. Placing reliance on the said judgment, the learned Single Judge by the order impugned in appeal allowed the writ petition by interfering with the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur dated 23.11.2017 to the extent the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur referred the matter to the Government to examine and issue necessary directions with special reference to the issue of the jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur to entertain the issues raised in the petition filed before it. The learned Single Judge did not interfere with the earlier order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner beyond the extent indicated above. 8. Being aggrieved the respondent No. 3 has filed the present writ appeal impugning the order dated 24.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned counsels for the parties have been heard. The order impugned in the present appeal as well as the pleadings on record have been duly perused. 9. It is seen that by the order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur is in effect an interim order which did not decide upon the rights inter party. The questions which were raised before the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur by filing the petition and as well as the objections raised by the opposite parties, were not decided by the order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur. The questions which were raised before the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur by filing the petition and as well as the objections raised by the opposite parties, were not decided by the order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur. What instead has been done is that the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur after narration of the facts and upon reference to the reports submitted by the Subordinate Review Officials, referred the question of jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur to decide on the issues to be examined to the Government and necessary directions in that regard were sought for from the Government. However, till such time the matter is disposed of by the Government it was directed that the status quo be maintained by all parties. 10. A careful perusal of the order reveals that this order was indeed an interim order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur till such time, the matter decided by the Government at the appropriate level. The respondents as the writ petitioners challenged this order on the grounds urged in the writ petition. The grounds in the writ petition were urged questioning the correctness of the order by the Deputy Commissioner and the following prayers were made by the petitioners in their writ petitioner. Prayers In the premises, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court would be pleased to issue Rule Nisi in the Writ Petition, call for the records, calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why (i) Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writs, Orders, Directions of like nature, should not be issued calling for the entire records of the case from the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for effective disposal of the matter and as the impugned action of the Respondent No. 2 in entertaining the said Application dated 23.06.2017 filed by the Respondent No. 3 registered as REV-13/80-D dated 23.06.2017 be declared unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India; And (ii) Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writs, Orders, Directions of like nature, should not be issued quashing the impugned Revenue Proceeding initiated by the Respondent No. 2 registered as REV-13/80-D dated 23.06.2017 by the issuance of the Summons dated 14.08.2017 as void-ab initio and inoperative for the purpose of determination of rights, title and possessions of the suit land stated in Paragraph 2 of the Writ Petition (An-nexure-P-2) in favour of the Respondent No. 3 initiated by the Respondent No. 2 registered as REV-13/80-D dated 23.06.2017 by resorting a Revenue Proceeding; And (iii) Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writs, Orders, Directions of like nature, should not be issued quashing the impugned Order dated 23.11.2017 in the Revenue Proceeding initiated by the Respondent No. 2 registered as REV-13/80-D/2560-62 dated 23.11.2017 as void - ab - initio and inoperative for the purpose of determination of rights, title and possessions of the suit land stated in Paragraph 2 of the Writ Petition (Annexure-P-2) in favour of the Respondent No. 3 initiated by the Respondent No. 2 registered as REV-13/80-D dated 23.06.2017 by resorting a Revenue Proceeding; And (iv) Whit of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writs, Orders, Directions of like nature, should not be issued quashing the impugned Document (Annexure-P-1) stated to have been executed in favour of Respondent No. 3 stated to have registered vide Regd. No. SD. 102/74 dated 21.12.1974 as void- ab- initio and inoperative for the purpose of determination of rights, title and possessions of the suit land Petition (Annexure-P-2) in favour of the Respondent No. 3; And (v) Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writs, Orders, Directions of like nature, should not be issued restraining the Respondent Nos. No. SD. 102/74 dated 21.12.1974 as void- ab- initio and inoperative for the purpose of determination of rights, title and possessions of the suit land Petition (Annexure-P-2) in favour of the Respondent No. 3; And (v) Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writs, Orders, Directions of like nature, should not be issued restraining the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to determine the civil rights over the suit land stated in Paragraph 2 of the Writ Petition in favour of Respondent No. 3 in a Revenue Proceeding initiated by the Respondent No. 2 registered as REV-13/80-D dated 23.6.2017 by the issuance of the impugned Summons dated 14.8.2017 as void - ab - initio and inoperative for the purpose of determination of civil rights over the suit land between the parties (Annexure-P-2); And (vi) Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writs, Orders, Directions of like nature, should not be issued restraining the Respondent No. 3 to interfere in any manner the peaceful enjoyment of the Petitioners over their respective plots of land which formed part and parcel of the suit land stated in Paragraph 2 of the Writ Petition (Annexure-P-2); And (vii) Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writs, Orders, Directions of like nature, should not be issued restraining the Respondent No. 2 in entertaining the said Application dated 23.06.2017 filed by the Respondent No. 3 registered as REV-13/80-D dated 23.06.2017 and proceed with the determination of the rights in a Revenue Proceeding in respect of the present dispute which is essentially a civil dispute to be adjudicated only by a Civil Court; And (viii) Pass such other further Orders as this Hon'ble Court deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; Pending disposal of the Writ Petition this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: (i) Stay the operation of the impugned Order dated 23.11.2017 in the Revenue Proceeding initiated by the Respondent No. 2 registered as REV13/80-D/2560-62 dated 23.11.2017 issued by the Respondent No. 2 directing the Parties to maintain Status Quo in respect of the Suit Property (Annexure-P-2), in the interest of justice; And After hearing the Parties on the causes shown by this Hon'ble Court make the Rule Absolute giving complete reliefs to the Petitioners and against the Respondent No. 3, in the interest of justice; 11. The learned Single Judge upon hearing the learned counsels, while allowing the writ petition interfered with only that portion of the Deputy Commissioner's order by which the matter was referred to the Government for deciding the question of jurisdiction in respect of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur to decide such matters. There was no further direction issued by the learned Single Judge. While disposing and allowing the writ petition by referring to the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Registrar General, Gauhati High Court Vs. Union of India (supra) the learned Single Judge held that it is a civil dispute relating to the title of the land which should be decided in a Civil Court manned by judicial officers appointed under 2006 Rules. The learned Single Judge held that the proper forum to be approached by the respondent No. 3 with regard to her grievances would be a Civil Court manned by judicial officers appointed under the 2006 Rules wherein the Deputy Commissioner could/should be made a party. 12. Upon careful perusal of the pleadings on record as well as the provisions of Assam Land Revenue Regulation Act, 1886, it is seen that the application filed by the appellant before the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur was an application under Sections 6(c), 53A(2), 54 read with Section 151 of the of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 against the petitioner/private respondent in appeal. Prayers made in the application filed by the appellant before the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur are extracted as under: In the premises aforesaid, the Petitioner/Applicant prays that Your honour be pleased to issue notices to the Respondents and after hearing of the case of the Petitioner/Applicant be pleased to a) Adjudge that the Petitioner/Applicant has acquired the right by Prescription under Section 6(c) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 and her name should be recorded in the Revenue record; b) Issue in her name a land Patta Passbook in respect of the land measuring 00 Bigha, 04 Khata and 16 Lasha in Block No. 07 of Mouza No. 02 and put her in the possession of the land. c) Set aside and cancelled Patta No. 1318 Dag No. 955/1377 Block No. 7 of Mouza No. 2 issued in the name of the Respondent No. 1, Patta No. 1322 Dag No. 1008/1381, Block No. 7 of Mouza No. 2 issued in the name of the Respondent No. 2 and Patta No. 1323 Dag No. 283/1008 Block No. 7 of Mouza No. 2 issued in the name of the Respondent No. 3 for having obtained the Pattas by illegal means. d) Pass an order directing eviction of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 from the land in question with immediate effect; e) Pass an order directing eviction of Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 from the land in question for encroaching the land of the Petitioner/Applicant without any authority of law and further direct demolition of the boundary walls erected by the Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 over the land in question; and f) Pass any order or orders as your honour may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. And During the pendency of the case be pleased to pass a restraint order restraining the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 from undertaking any construction work in the land in question. 13. The question, inter alia, which was required to be decided by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur was the issuance of mutation and grant of patta in the name of the appellant over the portion of land over which they claim their ownership, thereafter making necessary corrections in the land record and evict the writ petitioners/private respondents from that portion of land. Although, the matter was heard at some length by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur and although reports were called for in view of the preliminary objection raised by the opposite parties/petitioners relating to the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court itself, the matter was referred to the Government for effective decision and consequential instructions to the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur was also sought for. The core issues in respect of the claims made by the parties, namely, mutation in respect of the appellant's name over a portion of land, which are mutated in the name of the private respondents have not yet been decided. The core issues in respect of the claims made by the parties, namely, mutation in respect of the appellant's name over a portion of land, which are mutated in the name of the private respondents have not yet been decided. This dispute in respect of mutation was not gone into and effectively decided by the Deputy Commissioner although the respective parties filed their application and objection before the Deputy Commissioner urging their respective cases. Status quo was directed to be maintained by all parties till such time, the matter is disposed of by the competent authority. While, there is no dispute that pursuant to the Judgment passed by this Court in Registrar General, Gauhati High Court Vs. Union of India (supra), the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 will be applicable to Civil Courts established by law and manned by judicial officers appointed under 2006 Rules, however, it cannot be lost sight of that the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur is one of the ex-officio Revenue Officer as provided for under Section 123 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. Therefore, the questions relating issuance/grant of patta and/or cancellation thereof are questions which are to be dealt with by the revenue officers under the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 unless there are questions in respect of title which can only be decided by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. However, such finding to that effect is, at the first instance is required to be arrived at by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur in view of the issues raised by the parties in the application and which is presently pending disposal before the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur. The learned Single Judge while arriving at a conclusion that the disputes regarding title are required to be decided by competent Civil Courts, however did not seek to interfere with the entire order dated 23.11.2017 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur and/or set aside the proceedings itself, although specific prayers with regard to setting aside of the revenue proceeding was prayed for in the writ proceedings before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, while holding that the proper forum of respondent No. 3/appellant in respect of her grievances is the Civil Court, however, allowed the writ petition by interfering with the order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur only to the extent of the question of jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur in respect of the matter which was referred to the Government for decision and directions. Status quo order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur was also not interfered with. 14. Under the circumstances, this writ appeal is disposed of at this stage without any opinion on merit in respect of the inter se claims of the parties, by directing the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur to decide on the questions pending before it in respect of the inter se claims of the parties in terms of the provisions of law, more particularly, the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. Once the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur passes necessary orders in the application pending, the person(s) aggrieved, if any, will have their statutory remedies under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 or in the alternative may seek their remedy before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction as the case may be. 15. Accordingly, this writ appeal is allowed and disposed of by modifying the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent indicated above and directing the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur to decide this issue pending before it, in respect of the inter se claims of the parties in terms of the provisions of Assam Land Revenue Regulation. The decision be taken by the Deputy Commissioner upon giving due opportunity of hearing to the respective parties within 60 (sixty) days from the date of furnishing the certified copy of this order by the parties. No order as to cost. 16. The Writ Appeal is allowed as indicated above. 17. Interim order passed on 04.12.2019 is vacated.