Page No.# 1/3 GAHC020007142025 2025:GAU-NL:514 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : C. REVN/10/2025 SHRI LOGUBU TEP TSEMINYU VILLAGE, H/NO. 100, TT KHEL, DIST- TSEMINYU, NAGALAND-797109 VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NAGALAND, NAGALAND KOHIMA 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TSEMINYU DISTRICT NAGALAND 3:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (C) TSEMINYU NAGALAND 4:THE HEAD DOBASHI (DB) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TSEMINYU NAGALAND 5:SHRI SAMUEL THONG NEW SECRETARIAT OPPOSITE TO NPSC HALL KOHIMA NAGALAND-79700 Advocate for the Petitioner : ABEL AYEMI, LIMIKA KINIMI,BENISON V SHOHE,K ARKHA ACHUMI Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA O R D E R 28.10.2025 Heard Mr. Abel Ayemi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N, Angami, learned Senior Government Advocate for the State respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. This is a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 32 of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland (Third Amendment) Act, 1984 (Hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1984 for short) and Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 impugning the Order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) in Appeal case No. 1/2025 arising out of land dispute case No. 115/2025 dated 19.09.2024. 3. While the matter was being heard the learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents strongly submitted that the instant revision petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that there is a statutory alternative remedy for an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Rule 29(1) of the Act of 1984. This Court has perused the particular Rule, i.e., 29(1) which clearly reveals that there is an appellate provision available for the petitioner. However, it is seen that the time period for appeal before the Deputy Commissioner has already Page No.# 3/3 been elapsed. 4. After considering the factual matrix of the case and that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant petition, this Court is of the view that liberty should be granted to the petitioner to approach the Deputy Commissioner by filing an appeal. Therefore, it is directed that the limitation of 30 (thirty) days as prescribed in Rule 29(1) of the Act of 1984 should be exempted and the petitioner shall file his appeal before the Deputy Commissioner within 30(thirty) days from passing of this Order. 5. In view of the aforesaid, this instant revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. JUDGE Comparing Assistant