Page No.# 1/10 GAHC020002002026 2026:GAU-NL:492 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/38/2026 SHRI MIKHA WETSA R/O MENYITSUDA COLONY, PFUTSERO TOWN, DISTRICT PHEK, NAGALAND - 797107 VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND, KOHIMA, NAGALAND - 797001 2:THE COMMISSIONER NAGALAND KOHIMA - 797001 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PHEK NAGALAND - 797108 4:ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PFUTSERO PHEK NAGALAND - 797107 5:VETERINARY ASSISTANT SURGEON OFFICE OF THE VETERINARY ASSISTANT SURGEON VETERINARY DISPENSARY PFUTSERO PHEK NAGALAND. - 79710 Advocate for the Petitioner : C. T. JAMIR, SR. ADV, O TEMJEN JAMIR,JAWAMONG Page No.# 2/10 YADEN,IMTILA PONGEN,NUNGSANG AIER,KROVI TSUKRU,TOSHI JAMIR,ASA RUTSA,ALIBA OZUKUM,I IMCHEN Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, N. ANGAMI BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. C.T.Jamir, Sr. Adv. : Mr. I. Imchen, Adv. Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 : Mr. N. Angami, Govt. Adv Date on which judgment is reserved : 21.09.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 21.09.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment ? : N/A Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. C. T. Jamir, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. I. Imchen, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. N. Angami, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State Respondents. 2. The Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the various orders which have been enclosed as Annexure I, K, M and O to the Writ Petition. Page No.# 3/10 3. The brief facts of the instant case is that the land where the Office of the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Pfutsero, Phek is established is an area ad measuring 29.3 acres approximately belonging to six different land owners namely Dikhalo, Welhinye, Lhshielo, Lonyichu, Senukha and Dilo. It is the case of the Petitioner that the said land belongs to Kami Village under Phek district. It is further alleged by the Petitioner that out of the six land owners who owns six different portions of land, the three landowners namely Lhshielo, Lonyichu, Senukha belongs to Wetsa clan which is an ancestral property and had been in occupation and possession without any interruption till date and the Petitioner belongs to Wetsa clan. 4. The Petitioner has further alleged that the State Respondents by executing illegal Deeds of Release dated 20.06.1968 with Lhshielo, Lonyichu and Senukha of Wetsa clan are claiming the right, title and interest over the disputed land. It is alleged by the Petitioner that the descendants of the Wetsa Clan never parted with the right, title and interest of the said land at any point of time and have been in continuous occupation and peaceful possession of the land. The Petitioner also alleges that the Deed of Release dated 20.06.1968 was executed by Lonyichu at a time when he was just 9 years old. Page No.# 4/10 5. It is also the case of the Petitioner that in two separate Judgements dated 11.07.2007 and 04.05.2010 passed by the Dobashi's Court, it was held that the land belonged to the Wetsa clan. However, the Department of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry had mutated the disputed Land and Patta Book No. 613 was issued in favour of the Department of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry against an area admeasuring 24.7 acres surreptitiously. The Petitioner also alleges that the said Patta Book was obtained unlawfully with unclean hands. 6. The Petitioner in the present proceedings assails a Restraining Order dated 20.03.2024, issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pfutsero, Nagaland thereby restraining the Petitioner from encroaching within the land coming under Patta Book No. 613. It is the claim of the Petitioner that the said Restraining Order has no legs to stand inasmuch as the Respondent State had no rights over the land in question. The challenge to the Restraining Order dated 20.03.2024 is based upon the aforementioned allegations. 7. The records reveal that the Respondent No. 5 had submitted a Complaint dated 16.07.2025 to the Respondent No. 4 regarding land encroachment and stone quarry within the demarcated boundary area of the Old Veterinary Page No.# 5/10 Dispensary/State Cattle Breeding Far (SCBF) at Reku Menyitsuda under Pfutsero Sub-Division by the Petitioner. By an Order dated 04.08.2025, a direction was issued by the Respondent No. 4 to carry out a joint spot verification on 08.08.2025 at 11:30 am. This Order dated 04.08.2025 is assailed in the present proceedings. 8. The joint verification was carried out on 11.08.2025. The Respondent No. 4 passed an Order dated 28.11.2025 with an observation that the disputed land was acquired by the Government by outright purchase. This Order dated 28.11.2025 is also impugned in the present proceedings. 9. The records also show that the Petitioner was issued a Notice on 20.03.2026 by the Respondent No. 4 in exercise of powers conferred by Section 6 read with Section 7 of the Nagaland Eviction of Persons in Unauthorized Occupation of Public Land Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act of 1971’). This Notice is challenged in the present proceedings on the ground that the Notice under Section 6 of the Act of 1971 could have been issued after culmination of proceedings initiated by a Notice issued under Section 5 of the Act of 1971 which was not done. 10. The record reveals that pursuant to the filing of the Writ Page No.# 6/10 Petition, the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.04.2026 stayed the Eviction Notice dated 20.03.2026. 11. The Respondents in the meantime have filed the affidavit- in-opposition thereby stating inter-alia that the land in question wherein the Office of the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Pfutsero, Phek is situated was purchased from the land owners by payment of due compensation and under such circumstances, the Petitioner had no right to claim any ownership over the said land. It was also averred that the Petitioner cannot raise the dispute over the land inasmuch as amongst the various Deeds of Release which were executed, one of them was the grandfather of the Petitioner. It is also stated that the land in question is included in the Patta Book No. 613. A joint verification was conducted and it was found that the Petitioner had encroached upon the land. It is under such circumstances, directions were issued under the Act of 1971 for vacating the land by the Petitioner. 12. The Petitioner filed an affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in- opposition reiterating and reaffirming the statements made in the writ petition. 13. In the backdrop of the above, this Court has heard the Page No.# 7/10 learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have also perused the materials on record. 14. The allegations of the Petitioner that the land was fraudulently transferred to the State is an aspect which cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings inasmuch the Petitioner has to prove such allegations before a forum wherein questions of facts can be adjudicated. An allegation of fraud cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition unless the same are apparent on the face of the record or admitted by the Respondents. Neither the allegations of fraud are apparent on record nor the Respondents have admitted so. Rather, it is the case of the Respondents that the rights upon the land in question were acquired by outright purchase. The Deeds of Release as per the Respondents are testament to the purchase of the lands. It is of relevance to observe that the veracity of the allegations have to be tested in a Court wherein evidence can be led and the allegations are proved. Merely on the basis of the allegations, this Court cannot hold that the land so transferred in the year 1968 were done so fraudulently. Under such circumstances, till the lands are recorded in the name of the State, the impugned Restraining Order dated 20.03.2024 as well Page No.# 8/10 as the Order dated 28.11.2025 cannot be interfered with. In so far as the Order dated 04.08.2025 is concerned, the said order only directs a joint verification. There is no illegality to the same. 15. In view of the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the question as to whether the land was fraudulently transferred to the Respondents cannot be adjudicated by this Court. Under such circumstances, interfering with the orders dated 20.03.2024, 04.08.2025 and 28.11.2025 do not arise in the present proceedings. 16. Now let this Court take note of the impugned order dated 20.03.2026 which was passed in exercise of the powers under Section 6 read with Section 7 of the Act of 1971. For passing of an order under Section 6 read with Section 7 of the Act of 1971, the condition precedent is that a notice has to be issued under Section 5 of the Act of 1971 and thereupon an order has to be passed after giving the noticee an opportunity of hearing. Admittedly, neither any notice under Section 5 of the Act of 1971 was issued nor a proceedings under the said Act of 1971 was initiated. 17. Under such circumstances, the order dated 20.03.2026 issued by the Respondent No. 4 is without jurisdiction on the Page No.# 9/10 ground of not fulfilling the conditions precedent for passing such an order, i.e., initiation of a proceedings under the Act of 1971 by issuing a Notice under Section 5 of the Act of 1971. 18. Accordingly, this Court, therefore, disposes of the present proceedings with the following observations and directions:- (i) The impugned orders dated 20.03.2024 (Annexure-I), 04.08.2025 (Annexure-K) and 28.11.2025 (Annexure-M) are not interfered with for the reasons already assigned in the body of the judgment. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to challenge the Orders dated 20.03.2024 and 28.11.2025 in an appropriate proceedings before the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction. (ii) The Order dated 20.03.2026 enclosed as Annexure-O to the instant writ petition is set aside and quashed. (iii) The quashing of the impugned order dated 20.03.2026 by this Court in the present proceedings shall not prejudice the Respondents to initiate proceedings under the Act of 1971 by following the procedure laid down in the Act of 1971. Page No.# 10/10 (iv) The interim order passed in the present proceedings do not survive in view of the setting aside of the impugned order dated 20.03.2026. JUDGE Comparing Assistant