Page No.# 1/10 GAHC020003902024 2025:GAU-NL:381 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/137/2024 MR. NOLE A. SANGTAM SON OF LATE V. ATOSHE SANGTAM, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF YANGZITONG VILLAGE, DISTRICT-KIPHIRE, NAGALAND, MOBILE NO.-9233907237 VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND, KOHIMA, PIN-797001 2:THE HOME COMMISSIONER TO THE GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND NAGALAND KOHIMA PIN-797001 3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE HEADQUARTER NAGALAND KOHIMA PIN-797001 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KIPHIRE NAGALAND DISTRICT-KIPHIRE NAGALAND PIN-79861 Advocate for the Petitioner : L LIKHASE SANGTAM, CHENOSINLO SEB,BENISON V Page No.# 2/10 SHOHE,ATILA PONGEN Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Date : 18-08-2025 The present writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the writ petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on land ownership basis in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 16.08.2018. 2. The brief facts of the case as projected in the writ petition is that the grandfather of the petitioner, who was the owner of a plot of land in Yangzitong village, had donated the said piece of land to the Government for establishment of a police outpost, which is now being upgraded to a police station at Seyochung town, without asking for any compensation or value of the land. To this effect, an agreement bearing registration No. 12/03 dated 29.05.2003, was executed between the grandfather of the petitioner as the first party and the then Superintendent of Police, Kiphire and the Project Engineer, Police Engineering Project division, Nagaland as the second party. 3. By an Office Memorandum dated 16.08.2018, the Government of Nagaland in the Land Revenue Department issued directions to the Page No.# 3/10 different departments in the State Government to adhere to the government rules and policy with regard to land donated by the individuals, communities, villages, etc, with regard to the condition for employment to government service or contractual works or other facilities on land ownership basis. 4. For a ready reference, clause 1 (a) and clause 3 (a) and (b) of the said OM are reproduced herein below: “1 (a) It has been laid down vide Notification No. LR/4-3/KOH/2003 dated 26.07.2005 that no land shall be acquired free of cost and all land shall be acquired on payment of full compensation as determined by law. No further condition of employment in service or contractual works should be entertained. Therefore, in case any Department has entered into any agreement with the landowners in deviation of the laid down policy on or after 26.07.2005, such agreement shall be treated as null and void. The Department concerned shall take necessary action accordingly to nullity such agreement. 3(a) In other cases prior to 26.07.2005 and subsequent to setting up to Administrative and Block headquarters on freely donated land, where a specific written / oral agreement exists providing for employment or other facility to the landowner the clam of landowner for employment or other facility, the Department concerned shall refer the matter to the Deputy Commissioner of the District concerned who shall examine such claim carefully including whether any employment or any other facility including contract or supply order has been given in the past. Written statements from the witnesses that is, Government officials of the department concerned. District Administration and village functionaries present at the time of such written/oral agreement should be taken by the Deputy Commissioner. The recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner should be referred with relevant documents explanations to the Department of Land Revenue for examination and approval. (b) It is also clarified that it is not the policy of the Government to Page No.# 4/10 provide employment or other facility to the landowner in perpetuity. The employment or other facility of landowner, if permitted by a verifiable and valid agreement, is limited to the person first appointed as landowner in Government service and does not entitle his descendant for further employment or other facility on his retirement from service /vacates the post. After the appointed landowner retires or vacates the post, the vacancy will be filled up through open advertisement in consonance with the existing government policy giving equal opportunity to all applicants.” 5. The father of the petitioner had made an application on 04.12.2023, to the Superintendent of Police, Kiphire, Nagaland, informing him that since the police station at Seyochung town had been constructed in their land, without the land owner being compensated in any form, therefore, a request was made to offer the post of NEC (Sweeper) to the petitioner. When no action was taken on the said representation, the petitioner had preferred another representation to the Director General of Police, Police Headquarter, Nagaland, Kohima to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on land ownership basis as per the OM dated 16.08.2018. Alleging that no action has been taken by the respondents on the representations submitted by the petitioner and his father, this present writ petition has been preferred praying for direction as stated herein above. 6. I have heard Mr. L. Likhase Sangtam, learned counsel for the petitioner and I have also heard Ms. Bichano Kithan, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents. 7. Mr. Sangtam, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted Page No.# 5/10 that since statehood of the State of Nagaland, it is an established policy of the State government that the land owners of the land which were donated free of cost for government use were compensated either by offering appointments to the land owners or their family members, or by awarding them contracts under the government or in some other manner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that by a notification bearing No. LR/4- 3/KOH/2003 dated 26.07.2005, the government had declared that henceforth, no land should be acquired free of cost and all lands should be acquired by payment of full compensation as determined by law. Any conditions of employment in service or contractual works were prohibited. 8. The learned counsel further argued that by OM dated 16.08.2018, provisions were made by the State government, acting through the land revenue department to the effect that in cases prior to 26.07.2005, where specific written/oral agreement exists for providing employment or other facility to the land owner or the clan of the land owner in lieu of donation of land for government purposes, the department concerned is required to refer the matter to the Deputy Commissioner of the district concerned for careful examination and for collection of written statements of witnesses who were present at the time of such written or oral agreement for further action. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the agreement executed between the grandfather of the petitioner as the first party Page No.# 6/10 and authorized officials of the State acting as the second party is proof enough for the petitioner to make a claim that his case should be considered for appointment on land ownership basis and that the inaction of the respondent authorities despite of representations being preferred was prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. 10. The learned counsel submits that in accordance with paragraphs 3 (a) of the OM dated 16.08.2018, the petitioner had inherited a right to be considered for his appointment in lieu of the land which was donated by his grandfather free of cost for government use. The learned counsel further argued that the State cannot act to perpetuate inequality when others in similar circumstances were being considered for appointment while the respondents turned a blind eye to the petitioner. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition may be allowed and appropriate directions may be issued by the respondent authorities to take into account the representation made by the petitioner and make any enquiries as may be necessary under the OM dated 16.08.2018, and, thereafter, to offer appointment to the petitioner in accordance with his qualifications which he states to be under matric, but eligible for appointment to Grade-IV post. 11. Per contra, Ms. Bichano Kithan, learned Government Advocate has vehemently opposed to the arguments made on behalf of the petitioner and has stated that since the prayer made by the petitioner is not in consonance with any known due process of law, the prayer cannot be granted and the writ petition deserves to be Page No.# 7/10 dismissed. 12. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents have referred to the same OM dated 16.08.2018, and has argued that for the OM or any other provisions to be invoked, the first necessity is the existence of a specific written/oral agreement providing for appointment or other facility to the land owner of the clam of the landowner who donated land free of cost to the government. She has referred to the agreement annexed by the writ petitioner as Annexure A to the writ petition to argue that though the said agreement records that the first party, i.e., the grandfather of the petitioner had given a plot of land free of cost to the second party free from any encumbrances and giving up of claims to the rights over the land from the date of signing of the agreement, the said agreement does not contain any clause with regard to any promise or agreement by the second party to provide employment or any other facility either to the grandfather of the petitioner or to any member of his clan. 13. 13. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents has submitted that neither in the representations nor in the writ petition has the petitioner made any claim that there was even an oral agreement to the effect of providing for any benefit in the form of service or contract, in lieu of the land being given free of cost. The learned Government Advocate, therefore, submits that the petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. Page No.# 8/10 14. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the contents of the writ petition and annexures in the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner, the affidavit-in- opposition filed on behalf of the respondents and the affidavit-in- reply filed by the petitioner in reply to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondents. 15. The OM dated 16.08.2018 is the basic document by which the petitioner claims that he had inherited the right to be considered for appointment only on land ownership basis and without having to undergo a duly recognized selection process for employment to public post. 16. I have gone through the contents of the OM dated 16.08.2018. The submission made by the learned Government Advocate for the respondents is correct that, for any of the provisions of the OM dated 16.08.2018 to be made applicable, the first and foremost requirement is that a plot of land should have been donated free of cost by the ancestor or predecessor of the claimant, and the second requirement is that there should have been an agreement between the donor of the land and an authorized officer of the Government to the effect that employment or some other facility would be provided to the donor or his clan for providing the land free of cost. It is another matter whether such a mode of employment can be upheld in law but even assuming that such a mode of public employment can exist, it is seen that in the present case, the written agreement relied upon by the petitioner Page No.# 9/10 does not contain any specific offer on behalf of the government to provide for employment or other facility in lieu of the land being donated. There is no whisper either in the writ petition or in the affidavit-in-reply that there was any oral agreement between the donor and the government at the time when the land was donated. 17. It is noted that the petitioner claims to be 22 years of age in 2024, and, therefore, when the land was donated in the year 2003, the petitioner would be around 1 year of age and cannot have any personal knowledge of any such agreement being entered into by the grandfather with the government. The two certificates annexed at Annexure-F and Annexure-G which were issued by the Chairman, Yangzitong Village Council and the Extra Assistant Commissioner in the Office of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Seyochung, Nagaland respectively certified that the land was donated free of cost without making any reference to the terms of the agreement on which such land was donated. 18. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents during the course of her argument had referred to the judgment and order dated 23.07.2025 passed in WP(C)/136/2024 and the order dated 26.06.2018 passed in WA/18(K)/2013 to emphasize that this Court had repeatedly rejected prayers which were similar to the prayer made in the present writ petition. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioner on being given opportunity had countered the said submission of the learned Page No.# 10/10 counsel for the respondents by arguing that the facts and circumstances of the cases referred to by the learned Government Advocate for the respondents were different from the present writ petition, and, therefore, the reliance on them would be misplaced and be of no consequence in the present matter. 20. I am of the view that the written agreement relied upon by the writ petitioner does not contain any clause regarding providing employment to either the donor of the land or to any member of his clan, and, in total absence of any reference to any oral agreement between the parties to donate and accept the land, the provisions of the OM dated 16.08.2018 will not go to the aid and assistance of the petitioner to claim consideration for appointment on land ownership basis. 21. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the claim made by the writ petitioner for directions to consider his case for appointment on land ownership basis and, accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. It is however made clear that the dismissal of the writ petition will not preclude the petitioner from participating in any process of public employment, if he is otherwise eligible for the same. 22. The writ petition is disposed of on dismissal. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant