Shri. Kisheto Aye vs The State Of Nagaland & Ors.

Heard Mr. Pakinrichapbo, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. Imti Imsong, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6. None appears on behalf of the Respondent No.7.

The Petitioner herein has assailed the orders dated 13.05.2021 passed by the Revenue cum Resettlement Officer, Dimapur and the subsequent order dated 03.06.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur whereby the mutation order dated 23.08.2011 and the Patta bearing No.1327, Dag No. 13/1602, Block No.3 of Dimapur, Mouza No. 1, issued to the Petitioner was cancelled.

It is the specific case of the Petitioner that both the orders dated 13.05.2021 as well as 03.06.2021 were passed by the authorities concerned without following the principles of natural justice thereby informing the Petitioner and therefore, the said orders are required to be interfered with.

This Court has perused the order dated 13.05.2021 passed by the Revenue cum Resettlement Officer, Dimapur, and had also perused the Deed of Sale on the basis of which the Petitioner got the mutation. A perusal of the Deed of Sale shows that the said deed was executed and registered on 05.08.2011 and the mutation was granted on 23.08.2011. In this regard, this Court finds it relevant to take note of Section 52 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (for short ‘the Regulation’) which stipulates that upon submission of an application under Sections 50 or 51, the Deputy Commissioner shall publish a notice requiring all persons who object to the registration of the name of the applicant or who dispute the nature or the extent of the interest in respect of which the registration is applied to give a written statement of their objection. The said notice shall specify a date not less than 1 (one) month from the date thereof.

In the instant case, it is seen that on 05.08.2011, the Deed of Sale was executed and registered and the mutation was carried out on 23.08.2011. There is nothing on record to show that the mutation was done any time subsequent thereto and under such circumstances, it is apparent that the mutation was carried out in favour of the Petitioner in conflict to Section 52 of the Regulation.

This Court further has taken note of that in addition to the reason that the mutation was done in conflict to Section 52 of the Regulation, the Revenue cum Resettlement Officer, Dimapur had mentioned that the in the Deed of Sale dated 05.08.2011, the area purported to have been transferred was 1 Katha 18 Lechas but in the Jamabandi book, it was written as 1 Bigha 1 Katha 18 Lechas. It was also mentioned that there has been a collusion leading to manipulation and fabrication of the records whereby the area was initially entered as 1 Katha 18 Lechas, and now recorded as 1 Bigha 1 Katha 18 Lechas in the Jamabandi book.

This Court also finds it relevant to take note of that prior to filing of this writ petition, the Petitioner had already approached the Civil Court i.e. the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dimapur, and the said civil suit was registered and numbered as Civil Suit No.09/2022 wherein the Petitioner had sought for a declaration of his right, title and interest in respect to 1 Bigha 1 Katha 18 Lechas of land of Dag No.13/1602 covered by Patta No.1327 under Mouza No.1. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the said suit thereupon was withdrawn on 26.08.2022 with a liberty to file afresh.

In the backdrop of the above, the question arises as to whether this Court should interfere with the order dated 13.05.2021 and the subsequent order dated 03.06.2021.

From the above discussion, there are two aspects which need to be taken into consideration. First, that the mutation order which was passed on 23.08.2011 was in conflict to Section 52 of the Regulation inasmuch as no notice was issued. It is alleged by the Petitioner that the principles of natural justice were violated inasmuch as the Petitioner was not issued any notice prior to the cancellation of the mutation. In the opinion of this Court, the exceptions to the principles of natural justice would apply in the instant case i.e. the doctrine of useless formality inasmuch as, even if this Court directs the Deputy Commissioner or the Revenue cum Resettlement Officer to reconsider, the violation which had been occurred in granting the mutation cannot be changed.

The second aspect is the question of fabrication in the Patta Book as well as also in the Deed of Sale. It is difficult for this Court to comprehend as to why the Petitioner withdrew the civil suit inasmuch as the Petitioner is required to seek a declaration that the Petitioner is the owner of the said land admeasuring 1 Bigha 1 Katha 18 Lechas and not 1 Katha 18 Lechas. Be that as it may, the Petitioner was granted a liberty to file a fresh.

Considering the above, this Court therefore disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions: