Page No.# 1/4 GAHC020007372023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/328/2023 SHRI KHUTO CHOPHY @ K.K SUMI AND ANR S/O GHOKIYE CHOPHY R/O H.NO. 138, MISHIKITO VILLAGE CHUMOUKEDIMA NAGALAND 2: SHRI. MULUTO VENUH S/O VETSIETSO VENUH R/O H.NO. 139 TOULAZOUMA VILLAGE CHOMOUKEDIMA NAGALAN VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHOMOUKEDIMA NAGALAND 3:THE EXTRA ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SEITHEKEMA CHUMOUKEDIMA NAGALAND 4:SHRI. PRELO KOTSO S/O DZUTHOHU KOTSO R/O CHUMOUKEDIMA NAGALAND 5:SMT. VEKUPALU KEHYO R/O E KHEL TOULAZOUMA VILLAGE CHUMOUKEDIM For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pfosekho Pfotte, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. A. Ayemi, Govt. Advocate Mr. Alezo Kire, Advocate Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 04.04.2025 Heard Mr. Pfosekho Pfotte, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Ms. A. Ayemi, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Alezo Kire, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 4. 2. None appears on behalf of the respondent No. 5 in spite of service being duly affected. 3. The petitioners herein have assailed the order dated 22.05.2023 as well as the notice dated 03.08.2023 whereby the respondent No. 3 have declared that the respondent No. 4 is the sole and rightful owner of the plot bearing Toulazouma Village Council Patta No. 600 at E-Khel, Toulazouma and that the GBs of Toulazouma shall immediately remove the signboard placed illegally on the private property of the respondent No. 4. 4. In addition to that, vide the impugned notice dated 03.08.2023 the petitioners herein were directed to vacate the plot of the land/ building of the respondent No. 4 within 15 (fifteen) days from the date of issuance of the said notice, else, the petitioners were asked to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against them for trespassing Page No.# 3/4 into private property. 5. Mr. Pfosekho Pfotte, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the impugned order dated 22.05.2023 and the impugned notice dated 03.08.2023 so issued by the respondent No. 3 is without authority and jurisdiction. He submitted that either the Civil Court or the Authority under the Rules of Administration of Justice and Police, Nagaland, 1937 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Rules of 1937”) could have adjudicated as regards the right, title and interest over the plot of land. The EAC had no jurisdiction to do so. The learned counsel submitted that in terms with Rule 23 A of Rules of 1937, the EAC ought to have referred the matter to the Dobashi Court for a decision rather, the EAC himself decided which is not permissible under law. 6. Neither Ms. A. Ayemi, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 nor Mr. Alezo Kire, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4 could show before this Court that the respondent No. 3 had the jurisdiction and authority to pass the impugned order. 7. Taking into account the above, this Court interferes with the impugned order dated 22.05.2023 passed by the respondent No. 3 as well as consequential notice dated 03.08.2023 also issued by the respondent No. 3. It is however observed that the interference so made by this Court to the impugned order dated 22.05.2023 as well as the impugned notice dated 03.08.2023 shall not prejudice the Page No.# 4/4 respondent no. 4 in any proceedings initiated against the petitioners, if so advised. 8. With the above observations and directions the instant petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant