Page No.# 1/4 GAHC020006352025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/196/2025 SHRI SURESH JAIN SETHI H.NO. 42, G.S. ROAD, NEAR DURGA MANDIR, DIMAPUR NAGALAND-797112 VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DIMAPUR AND 2 ORS DIMAPUR NAGALAND-797112 2:DIMAPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN DIMAPUR NAGALAND-797112 3:DIGAMBER JAIN SAMAJ REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SHRI ANIL SETHI G.S. ROAD DIMAPUR NAGALAND-79711 Advocate for the Petitioner : C. T. JAMIR, SR. ADV, O TEMJEN JAMIR,JAWAMONG YADEN,IMTILA PONGEN,NUNGSANG AIER,KROVI TSUKRU,TOSHI JAMIR,ASA RUTSA,ALIBA OZUKUM,I IMCHEN Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 17/11/2025 1. Heard Mr. Aliba Ozukum, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.L.T. Sangtam, learned AAG, Nagaland, for Page No.# 2/4 the respondent no.1 and Mr. A.Zhimomi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. No one appears for the respondent no. 2 even though the affidavit of service dated 07/10/2025 submitted by the petitioner, shows that the notice has been served upon the respondent no.2 on 29/09/2025. As such, notice is deemed to be served upon the respondent no. 2. 2. The petitioner’s case is that he is the owner of a building located at G.S.Road, Dimapur, covering an area of approximately 2736 sq.ft and in reality covering an area of 2362.88 sq.ft. The petitioner’s further case is that the respondent no. 3 had obtained a “No Objection Certificate” (NOC) on 18/05/2019 from the respondent no. 2, for construction of a multistoried RCC building on the land adjacent to the petitioner’s land. As per the NOC for construction, the respondent no. 3 was required to keep a margin of 5 ft. distance from his boundary. However, the respondent no.3 has not kept any margin from the boundary, while constructing the building. 3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that though the respondent no. 3 has not constructed his building on the land of the petitioner, the respondent no. 3 has to keep a distance of 5 ft. from the boundary, in terms of the NOC granted by the respondent no.2. 4. Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3, on the other hand, submits that the land of the respondent no. 3 measures about 17 ft. and if he is to keep 5 ft. distance between the building and the boundary on either side, his construction would only cover 7 ft. approx. He also submits that the respondent no. 3 had not made any application to the respondent no.2, for grant of Page No.# 3/4 NOC and the same had apparently been surreptitiously made by the petitioner in the name of the respondent no. 3. He also submits that a complaint dated 22/10/2025 in this regard has been submitted to the respondent no.2. A copy of the same has also been furnished to the Court and the same is taken on record and marked as Annexure ‘X’. 5. Mr. L.T. Sangtam, learned AAG, Nagaland, appearing for the respondent no. 1 submits that the respondent no. 1 has got no role to pay in the present dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no. 3, which can be decided by the respondent no.2. 6. On hearing the counsels for the parties, this Court finds that the issue raised by the parties relates to disputed questions of fact. The first question of the fact is as to whether the respondent no. 3 had applied for a NOC from the respondent no.2 and as to whether the NOC had been issued by the respondent no. 2. Secondly, whether there is any requirement for land owners to construct their buildings, by keeping a certain margin/distance of their buildings from the boundary. 7. The Dimapur Municipal Council shall accordingly take a decision on the issues raised by the parties at the earliest, preferably within a period of 6 (six) weeks’ from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The decision should be taken after giving the parties an opportunity of hearing. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Page No.# 4/4 Comparing Assistant