Page No.# 1/6 GAHC020004262026 2026:GAU-NL:489-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WA/25/2026 SHRI L. ATOPU SUMI R/O 1023, BLOCK NO. 5, PADUMPUKHURI, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NAGALAND, KOHIMA, NAGALAND 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DIMAPUR NAGALAND 3:THE REVENUE-CUM-RESETTLEMENT OFFICER OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DIMAPUR NAGALAND 4:SMTI. PAOMIPEN KIKON PROPRIETOR AND MANAGING DIRECTOR MILON SCHOOL BLOCK NO. 5 PADUMPUKHURI DISTRICT DIMAPUR NAGALAND 5:SMTI. K. ARENLA RESIDENT OF 661 LANE NO. 5 BLOCK NO. 5 Page No.# 2/6 PADUMPUKHURI DIMAPUR NAGALAN Advocate for the Petitioner : IMTI LONGJEM, LHOUSINO,GRACE I NAMGI,CATHERINE ANICHAR Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE HELEN DAWNGLIANI Advocate for the Appellant : Imti Longjem Advocate for the Respondents : Moa Imchen, Sr. Govt. Adv. (R-1-3) : T.B. Jamir (R-4&5) Date on which judgment is reserved : 16.09.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 16.09.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment ? : N/A Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) (D.Baruah,J) 1. Heard Mr. Imti Longjem, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, Mr. Moa Imchen, learned Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Page No.# 3/6 2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.04.2026 passed in WP(C)/86/2025, whereby the challenge by the Appellant to the order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, was rejected by dismissing the writ petition. 3. We have duly perused the order dated 15.04.2025. A perusal of the said order reveals that the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 filed a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur against the Appellant herein on the ground that the Appellant herein had constructed a gate on a road intended for public use thereby causing illegal obstruction and inconvenience to the public who uses the same. In the complaint filed by the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 it was alleged that Smt. Paomipem Kikon’s husband Mhonlumi Kikon purchased the residential plot of land from Mr. Felix in the year 2015. There already existed a road. The road ad measured 440x20 ft and was voluntarily allotted by Mr. Felix in the year 2012 without any condition or compensation sought from the beneficiaries. The complainants stated that they had contributed some portion of their land to facilitate the approach road extension. 4. On the other hand, it was the case of the Appellant that the approach road leading to his plot of land measuring 3 Bighas under Patta No. 1314, Dag No. 263/1811 was purchased by him in the year 2010 from Lt. Horen’s son. However, in the year 2012, Mr. Felix purchased the land over which the approach road runs from 2 [two] different individual owners. Thereupon, Mr. Felix approached the Appellant with a request for exchange of the approach road to which the Appellant agreed and accordingly Mr. Felix carved out the present disputed road from his plot of land. In that regard the Appellant produced a land exchange agreement Page No.# 4/6 executed before a Notary Public with Registration No. 1068/2024 dated 01.10.2024. 5. On the basis of the claims so made by the Appellant as well as the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and examining the witnesses, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur came to the opinion that the Appellant was in occupation of excess land measuring 14 Lessas in as much as the Patta of the Appellant ad measured 03B-00K-00Ls, whereas he was in occupation of 03B-00K-14Ls. It was also the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner that the distance from the Appellant’s land/residence and the gate is 440 ft and did not fall under his Patta No. 1314, Dag No. 263/1811 and the Appellant did not have documentary evidence to prove that the road does not fall under private road. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner directed the Appellant to dismantle the gate within a period of 15 [fifteen] days from the date of passing of the order and failure to comply would ensure legal consequences. 6. The Appellant being aggrieved by the said order dated 15.04.2025 approached this Court primarily on the ground that the land in question was a private road. The Deputy Commissioner did not have the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 15.04.2025. Such disputes could have been adjudicated by a civil court. 7. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment and order dated 23.04.2026 passed in WP(C)/86/2025 dismissed the said writ petition and it is under such circumstances the present appeal has been filed. 8. We have heard Mr. Imti Longjem, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, Mr. Moa Imchen, learned Senior Government Advocate Page No.# 5/6 appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 9. From the submissions so made by the learned counsels appearing at the Bar it is absolutely clear that the land in question is a private land and not a land which falls within Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules or even in terms with the definition of “waste land” as defined in Rule 1(2)(b) of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. 10. The dispute in question is purely a civil dispute between the Appellant and the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in as much as the Appellant claims his right over the private road on the basis of an exchange agreement whereas the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 claims that Mr. Felix had given the private road for use of the public and the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have also given some of their land for the private road. 11. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that it being a purely civil dispute between the Appellant and the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in respect to the private land, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur could not have exercised the jurisdiction to pass the order dated 15.04.2025. We say so for the reason that the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur exercises jurisdiction as a Revenue Authority. The inter se rights pertaining to right, title and interest over private lands cannot be decided by the Deputy Commissioner. 12. We have taken note of that the learned Single Judge failed to take note of the said aspect though it is a settled principle of law. Accordingly, we interfere with the judgment and order dated 23.04.2026 passed in WP(C)/86/2025 by the learned Single Judge. Page No.# 6/6 13. We further interfere with the impugned order dated 15.04.2025, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur. 14. The writ appeal stands allowed. 15. Before parting with the records, we observe that the present judgment would not affect the rights of either the appellant or the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, if they approach a competent court of Civil jurisdiction regarding the adjudication of their rights qua the disputed road. The said competent Court of civil jurisdiction shall decide such dispute in accordance with law without being influenced by our observations made herein above. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant