Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10448 (GAU)

Namheirai S/o Irangchube v. State of Nagaland

2026-03-24

Devashis Baruah

body2026
JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. I. Imchen, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. Bichano Kithan, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. A. Zho, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 5. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court challenging the Approval Letter dated 13.03.2024 as well as the Appointment Order dated 15.03.2024 of the respondent No. 5 and sought for a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner on land ownership basis in terms with the Notification dated 05.03.2018. 3. The brief facts of the instant case are that there was a Memorandum of Understanding (for short, “the MoU”) entered into by and between the landowners of Peren Village, New Peren Village and Kezanglwa Village wherein various resolutions were adopted, including a resolution that there shall be no claim of job/contract works as land owner quota after accepting the land compensation from the Government. It is very pertinent to take note of that the MoU was drawn on 03.07.2006. 4. Pursuant thereto, on 30.10.2009, the landowners of the 3 (three) Villages represented by their Chairman entered into an agreement with the Government of Nagaland represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Peren in respect to sale of 3,715.18 Acres of land. Out of the said land, an area of land admeasuring 510.62 Acres belonged to Kezanglwa Village. It was agreed to that the rate of compensation payable was Rs. 25,000/- per Acre, and the total compensation for 2,500 Acres was Rs. 6,25,00,000/-. 5. In the case of the Kezanglwa Village, the compensation was to be cleared on or before 31.03.2010. Clauses 3 and 4 of the agreement dated 30.10.2009, being relevant, is reproduced herein under: “3. That the Purchaser shall pay the remaining amount i.e., Rs.30379500/- (Rupees Three crores three lakhs seventy nine thousand and five hundred) only for the remaining 1215.18 Acres out of which 510.62 acres belongs to Kezanglwa will be cleared in the second installment on or before 31 st March 2010 to the Vendors. 4. That, failure on the part of the purchaser to pay the second installment on or before 31 st March 2010, the purchaser shall pay the compensation at the present prevailing rate of Govt. 4. That, failure on the part of the purchaser to pay the second installment on or before 31 st March 2010, the purchaser shall pay the compensation at the present prevailing rate of Govt. of Nagaland to the land owner for the remaining areas of land i.e., 1215.18 Acres to the Vendors but in no case shall delay the payment beyond 2010-11 financial year.” 6. A perusal of the above quoted Clauses would reveal that the compensation in respect to the Kezanglwa village was to be paid on or before 31.03.2010 and if the same amount is not paid on or before 31.03.2010, the Government of Nagaland shall pay the compensation at the prevailing rate of Government of Nagaland to the land owner for the remaining areas of land and in no case there shall be a delay beyond 2010-11 financial year. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's village did not receive the compensation and as such, the various village members had written a letter to the Principal Secretary & Commissioner, Kohima for appointment to the post of Grade-IV. The Village Council had also written a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Peren on 07.06.2022. The petitioner had also submitted an application on 21.02.2023 for appointment on land ownership basis. 8. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner’s case was not considered, however, the Respondent Authorities granted approval on 13.03.2024 for the appointment of the respondent No. 5 along with one Shri Perangsappe Ndang. Subsequently, on 15.03.2024, both the respondent No. 5 as well as the said Shri Perangsappe Ndang were appointed. The case of the petitioner herein is that as the respondent No. 5 was not the landowner, and as such could not have been appointed. The petitioner therefore challenged the appointment of the respondent No. 5 and sought for a direction that the case of the petitioner should be considered against the vacancy. 9. The records reveal that pursuant to the filing of the instant writ petition, this Court issued notice on 17.05.2024. The records further reveal that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as well as the respondent No. 5 had filed their affidavits. 10. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 9. The records reveal that pursuant to the filing of the instant writ petition, this Court issued notice on 17.05.2024. The records further reveal that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as well as the respondent No. 5 had filed their affidavits. 10. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, it is mentioned that both the MoU dated 03.07.2006 as well as the Agreement dated 30.10.2009 were with the condition that the purchaser shall pay the land compensation to the vendor under the terms laid down therein. It was one of the terms that in the circumstance, the compensation could not be paid on or before 31.03.2010, the said amount shall be paid by the Government of Nagaland at the prevailing rate of the Government of Nagaland within the financial year of 2010-11. It was further mentioned that a portion of land covering 510.62 Acres was acquired by the Government, and there is a dispute between the Kezanglwa Village and the Old Jalukie Village over the compensation. It was also mentioned that though the petitioner has sought for appointment, but the amount of compensation has already been determined by the Collector in the Order dated 21.04.2015, whereby the compensation was determined at Rs. 1,27,65,500/-, and the same was to be apportioned between both the Kezanglwa Village and the Old Jalukie Village, of which Rs. 95,65,500 was to be disbursed to the Kezanglwa Village and Rs. 32,00,000/- to the Old Jalukie Village. It is however mentioned that the said amount has not yet been released. 11. At paragraph No. 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, it is averred that Shri Perangsappe Ndang of Kezanglwa Village was appointed as a Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) at Chief Veterinary Officer, Office Peren on 15.03.2024 and taking into account the Notification dated 05.03.2018, and more particularly Clause 3(c), it is not the policy of the Government to provide employment to the landowner in perpetuity. It is also mentioned at paragraph No. 8 that the respondent No. 5 who hailed from the Old Jalukie Village was appointed against one post as the Old Jalukie Village had also a right over the land which was sought to be acquired. 12. It is also mentioned at paragraph No. 8 that the respondent No. 5 who hailed from the Old Jalukie Village was appointed against one post as the Old Jalukie Village had also a right over the land which was sought to be acquired. 12. The records further revealed that the respondent No. 5 had also filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it is categorically mentioned that the ownership of the land of Kezanglwa Village, is a disputed land between the Kezanglwa village and the Old Jalukie Village. There are various Court judgments which have been passed as regards the rights over the said land, and reference to that was made to the Judgment and Order dated 06.08.1980 passed in Civil Revision No. 3(K)/1975 which was upheld by the Apex Court on 04.10.1982. It is also mentioned that another Civil Suit between the said parties is pending, being Civil Suit No. 1/2016 before the learned Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Dimapur. 13. The record reveals that affidavits-in-reply has also been filed by the petitioner to the affidavits-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as well as the respondent No. 5. 14. In the said affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, at paragraph No. 4, it is categorically mentioned that the appointment of Shri Perangsappe Ndang cannot be a reason for denial of appointment of the petitioner on land ownership basis as both the petitioner as well as Shri Perangsappe Ndang are two different landowners who have donated the land where the Chief Veterinary Office, Peren is established, conferring them a legitimate right to be considered for appointment on land ownership basis. 15. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 5, the petitioner stated that the respondent No. 5 had no right to be considered for appointment on land ownership basis, as the respondent No. 5 was not a landowner. 16. In the backdrop of the above, this Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties whose submissions were in terms with the respective pleadings as discussed herein above. For the sake of brevity, this Court is therefore not reiterating their respective submissions. 17. 16. In the backdrop of the above, this Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties whose submissions were in terms with the respective pleadings as discussed herein above. For the sake of brevity, this Court is therefore not reiterating their respective submissions. 17. The question, which arises before this Court is, as to whether, there is a requirement on the part of this Court to interfere with the appointment of the respondent No. 5. 18. The claim of the petitioner herein is based on consideration for appointment on land ownership basis. The appointment to be made on land ownership basis is on the basis of a Notification dated 05.03.2018 issued by the Government of Nagaland. A perusal of the said Notification reveals that, w.e.f. 26.07.2005, no land shall be acquired free of cost, and all land shall be acquired upon payment of full compensation as determined by law. It is also mentioned that no further condition for employment in service or contractual work shall be entertained. 19. Clause 1(a) of the said Notification dated 05.03.2018 further makes it clear that if any department has entered into any agreement with landowners in deviation of the laid down policy on or after 26.07.2005, such agreement shall be treated as null and void. However, an exception to the same is mentioned under Clause 1(b) of the said Notification dated 05.03.2018, which stipulates that in case the department concerned is of the view that such agreement should not be declared null and void, it shall refer it with relevant details giving justification, to the Department of Land Revenue for examination and advice in consultation with the P&AR and the Justice & Law Departments and thereafter submit the same for consideration and decision of the Cabinet. 20. In the backdrop of the above, this Court duly takes note of that the MoU as well as the Agreement on the basis of which the petitioner claims entitlement to appointment on land ownership basis are dated 03.07.2006 and 30.10.2009 respectively. Under such circumstances, the said MoU and Agreement, insofar as they stipulate any conditions for employment in lieu of land compensation, are liable to be treated as null and void. 21. Under such circumstances, the said MoU and Agreement, insofar as they stipulate any conditions for employment in lieu of land compensation, are liable to be treated as null and void. 21. Further to that, nothing has been brought on record to show that the department concerned has taken any steps in consultation with the Department of Land Revenue, P&AR and the Justice & Law Department. The reason why the same has not been done is apparent from the Clauses of the MoU dated 03.07.2006 as well as the Agreement dated 30.10.2009, wherein it is categorically stipulated that there shall be no claim for job/contract works as landowner quota after accepting the land compensation from the Government. Under such circumstances, the very basis of the petitioner’s claim in terms with the Notification dated 05.03.2018 appears to be misconceived. 22. It is also seen from the Agreement dated 30.10.2009 that the area of land to be sold by Kezanglwa Village to the Government of Nagaland was 510.62 acres. In respect to the said land, it appears from the materials on record that there are apparent disputes between the two villages. It is further seen that in the meantime, the compensation in respect to the land has already been determined, however, the amount has not yet been released. The Order dated 21.04.2015 passed by the District Collector is a testament that the amount had been determined and is required to be apportioned between Kezanglwa village and Old Jalukie Village. 23. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner’s claim for appointment on land ownership basis in terms with the Notification dated 05.03.2018 appears to be totally misconceived. 24. Now let this Court take note of the appointment so made in favour of the respondent No. 5 as well as one Shri Perangsappe Ndang. 25. It is seen that the State of Nagaland, taking into account that the compensation has not been paid and that there is an apparent dispute between the Kezanglwa Village and Old Jalukie village, had given appointment to respondent No. 5 as well as Shri Perangsappe Ndang. However, the petitioner herein has not assailed the appointment of Shri Perangsappe Ndang on the ground that he belongs to the petitioner’s village. 26. However, the petitioner herein has not assailed the appointment of Shri Perangsappe Ndang on the ground that he belongs to the petitioner’s village. 26. In addition to that, nothing was shown by the petitioner as to why Clause 3(c) of the Notification dated 05.03.2018 would not apply in the case of the petitioner as Shri Perangsappe Ndang had already been appointed from the petitioner’s village. 27. Considering the above, this Court is of the opinion that the present case is not a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 28. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The challenge to the Approval Letter of the respondent No. 5 dated 13.03.2024 bearing Letter No. AHV/EST-40/Peren/2022/1060 is rejected. (ii) The challenge to the impugned Appointment Order vide No. VET/EST-3/PRN/1/2023-24 dated 15.03.2024 by which the respondent No. 5 was appointed is rejected. (iii) In view of the facts involved, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner’s case does not come within the ambit of the Notification dated 05.03.2018. (iv) The writ petition lacks merit and accordingly stands dismissed. No costs.