Page No.# 1/32 GAHC020006852025 2026:GAU-NL:486 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/213/2025 SHRI MUKESH KUMAR SHARMA LEGAL HIER OF LATE SHRI RATAN LAL SHARMA, HOUSE NO. 151, ARMY SUPPLYU ROAD, DIMAPUR NAGALAND-797115 VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NAGALAND, KOHIMA NAGALAND-797001 2:THE COMMISSIONER GOVT. OF NAGALAND NAGALAND KOHIMA-797001 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DIMAPUR NAGALAND-797113 4:LHOUBEILATUO KIRE (ABEIO) LEGAL HIER OF K.KIRE AND CO. NEAR VIDGYA BAWAN HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL LANE-17 HALF NAGARJAN DIMAPUR NAGALAND-79711 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. C. T. Jamir, Sr. Adv. : Ms. Imtila Pongen, Adv Page No.# 2/32 Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 : Mr. Imti Imsong, Addl. AG. Advocate for the Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Alezo Kire, Adv. Date on which judgment is reserved : 17.09.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 17.09.2026 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 Ms. I. Pongen, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, Mr. Imti Imsong, learned Additional AG appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. Alezo Kire, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 4. 2. The Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the summon issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaland dated 05.08.2024 as well as the summon issued by the Commissioner, Nagaland on 22.08.2025, primarily on the ground that the dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 4 is a purely civil dispute for which the Revenue authorities have no power to exercise jurisdiction. Page No.# 3/32 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: 3. The facts of the instant case in brief are that a plot of land was allotted to One Barindra Kumar Das (since deceased) in the year 1947, by the then Deputy Commissioner Naga Hills vide allotment Order dated 29-08- 1947 which was later purchased by the Petitioner's father late Ratan Lal Sharma on 23.11.2008. The aforesaid land was covered by Dag No. 7 of Block No. 7. The Petitioner claims that at the time of the purchase of land by the Petitioner’s father from Shri. Bidyut Kumar Das son of Late. Barindra Kumar Das in the year 2009, he was aware that there was a bar for transfer of land from tribals to non-tribals vide order dated 22.04.1976 issued by the Department of Land Revenue. However, as the transfer was between non-tribal to non-tribal, the bar contained in the order dated 22.04.1976 had no effect. 4. It is the further case of the Petitioner that in addition to the above purchase, the Petitioner’s father along with one Yavito Kiba had purchased another plot of land from Bidyut Kumar Das by executing a sale deed dated 23.11.2009 which was duly registered before the Sub- Registrar, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, Nagaland. It is the case of the Petitioner that the land purchased was from a plot of Page No.# 4/32 land admeasuring 1 Bigha and each of the purchasers were sold land admeasuring 1 Katha 15 lechas each. Pursuant to the purchase, the lands were mutated in the name of the Petitioner’s father in Dag No.1081/1238 of Patta No.1183. The Petitioner also claims that though the area of the land which should have been mutated was 1 Katha 15 lechas but only 15 lechas of land was mutated. 5. It is the further case of the Petitioner that there was a pending dispute raised by the Private Respondent alleging that the land purchased by the Petitioner's father did not fall under the patta held by Shri. Bidyut Kumar Das from whom the land was purchased. The said complaint was disposed of by Order dated 18.11.2009 wherein, it was observed that the land claimed by the Private Respondent falls under Shri. Bidyut Kumar Das patta and also the Private Respondent had agreed to give up the claim made against the Petitioner's father. In addition to the above, the Petitioner’s father also purchased another plot of land from Shri. Bidyut Kumar Das in the same area under Patta No. 1029, Dag No. 7/1081, Block No.07 vide registered sale deed dated 30.07.2010. Thereupon, the land was mutated in the name of the Petitioner’s father vide an Order dated 11.08.2010. A Genuineness Certificate was also issued by the Revenue cum Page No.# 5/32 Settlement Officer, Dimapur, Nagaland certifying that the land had been verified and had been tallied to be genuine. 6. It is the further case of the Petitioner that while the Petitioner was enjoying the said lands after the demise of his father, a complaint was lodged before the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur for eviction of the Petitioner by the Private Respondent on 02.01.2024 and another complaint was also lodged before the Revenue Officer, Dimapur, Nagaland dated 14.10.2024 on the ground that the Petitioner's father was not an indigenous of Nagaland and violated the notifications dated 28.04.1977 and 29.06.2019. In pursuance to the complaint submitted before the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, a summon was issued dated 05.08.2024 by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, which is a subject matter of challenge in the present proceedings. In addition to that, the Commissioner, Nagaland had issued another summon on 22.08.2025, which is also a subject matter of challenge. 7. The present writ petition was filed by the Petitioner alleging that in view of the dispute between the Petitioner and the Private Respondent being a purely civil dispute, the Revenue authorities do not have the competence to decide the same. Page No.# 6/32 8. Pursuant to the fling of the instant writ petition, the record reveals that the learned Co-ordinate bench of this Court had issued notice on 16.10.2025, and in the interim, stayed both the summons dated 05.08.2024 and 22.08.2025 which have been impugned in the present proceedings. 9. The record reveals that an affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the State Respondents. In the said affidavit-in- opposition, it is mentioned that upon inquiry, it came to light that the Petitioner's late father Ratan Lal Sharma had obtained the non Naga Indigenous Certificate fraudulently and by using the same had purchased the plot of land bearing Patta No.1183, Dag No 1081/1238, Block 7 of Dimapur Mouza No. 1 from Shri. Bidyut Kumar Das. Under such circumstances, the purchase of the plot of land and the subsequent mutation was ab-initio illegal. 10. From a further perusal of the said affidavit-in- opposition, it appears that the stand taken by the State respondents is that late Ratan Lal Sharma was not a non Naga indigenous inhabitant and as such, the certificate which was issued to late Ratan Lal Sharma was obtained fraudulently and for which the same had been canceled. It is after cancellation of the non Naga indigenous inhabitant certificate which was issued to late Ratan Lal Sharma, Page No.# 7/32 proceeding were initiated before the Commissioner, Nagaland in terms with Rule 26 of the Settlement Rules for cancellation of the patta. 11. An affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the Respondent No. 4, wherein it is averred that in or about the year 1978, a portion of land belonging to Late K. Kire was acquired for the purpose of extension of Kohima Town. In recognition thereof, the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima recommended the case of Late K. Kire for allotment of alternative land as a special case vide letter dated 22.02.1978. Pursuant thereto, the Government, vide order dated 09.05.1978, approved the allotment and thereby, granted settlement of land admeasuring 9 Bigha 1 Katha 5 Lessas under Dag No. B/7, Block No. 7, vide letter dated June 1978, upon payment of a premium of Rs. 500/-.Thereupon, a Jamabandi was duly issued in favour of Late K. Kire & Co., conferring lawful title, possessory rights and recognition in revenue records in accordance with law. 12. It is the further case of the Respondent No. 4 that the allotted land was under occupation of the Armed Forces and late Shri K. Kire allowed the said occupation purely on a permissive and temporary basis through a verbal understanding and the same was never intended to create Page No.# 8/32 any right, title, or interest in favour of the occupying authority or any third party. It was further mentioned that the land claimed by the Petitioner and the land allotted and recorded in favour of Late Shri. K. Kire & Co is distinct and different parcels of land. The Respondent No. 4’s land stands settled and recorded as Patta No. 61, Dag No. 89, block No. 7, whereas the claim of the Petitioner originates from the land bearing Block No. 7, Dag No.7 measuring 112 feet on the frontage, however, no further description was indicated and as such, the two allotments which were given in favour of the Petitioner as well as the Respondent No. 4 are separate and independent chain of documents. 13. It is further stated at Para 9 of the said affidavit- in-opposition that the father of the Petitioner was attempting to take forcible occupation of the wet canteen area which fell within the area of the pattas issued to the Respondent No. 4 and in that regard, the Respondent No. 4 had submitted an application dated 04.09.2023 to the Revenue Officer, Dimapur, inter-alia for resurvey of the area of Dag No. 7/89. Upon joint verification, the findings recorded on 10.10.2023 as well as the subsequent joint verification report indicates that the land claimed by Late Ratan Lal Sharma falls within the boundary of Dag No. 7/89, which is the Respondent No. 4’s land. However, Page No.# 9/32 the respondent authorities, thereupon, did not take any action. It is under such circumstances that the Respondent No. 4 had submitted a complaint dated 02.01.2024 for taking effective steps for eviction. Additionally, another application was filed before the Revenue Officer, Dimapur seeking cancellation of patta dated 14.10.2024. 14. It is contended by the Respondent No.4 that in terms with Rule 26 of the Settlement Rules, the Commissioner, Nagaland can decide the aspect pertaining to the cancellation of the Patta issued in favour of Late Ratan Lal Sharma. 15. An affidavit-in-reply was filed by the Petitioner against the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 wherein the Petitioner apart from reiterating and reaffirming the statements made in the writ petition, took the plea that the cancellation of the non Naga Indigenous Certificate had no material bearing on the registration of the Deeds of Sale as well as the mutation and the subsequent issuance of patta. In addition to that, it is also mentioned that the Nagaland Land and Revenue Regulation (Amendment) Act, 1978 (for short ‘the Amending Act’) cannot by itself establish that the transaction in question was ab-initio illegal, particularly when the applicability of the said provision to the Page No.# 10/32 land and the transaction is a matter requiring determination on the basis of the relevant records. 16. It was also stated that the non Naga Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate though have been stated to have been obtained fraudulently but it is not supported by any materials on record. The Sale Deed dated 23.11.2009 was duly registered by the competent authority and the Petitioner's father thereafter, obtained mutation in accordance with the revenue records. It is stated that the State Respondents cannot merely on the basis of a subsequent allegation declare the registered transaction to be ab-initio illegal or treat the registration as void without following due process of law. SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES: 17. Mr. C. T. Jamir, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the sale deeds in question have been registered on 23.11.2009 as well as on 23.07.2010. The learned Senior counsel submitted that by virtue of the execution of the Deeds of Sale and subsequent registration, the rights in respect to the lands sold vide the Deeds of Sale stood vested upon the father of the Petitioner. Subsequent thereto, mutations were carried out in respect to the concerned pattas in the name of the father of Page No.# 11/32 the Petitioner. Unless and until the Deeds of Sale are not canceled in accordance with law, which is by filing appropriate suits for cancellation, the Revenue authorities do not have the jurisdiction to nullify the effect of the sale as well as the Deeds of Sale. 18. The learned Senior counsel further submitted as to whether the Petitioner or his father had encroached upon the land of the Respondent No. 4 is a question which can be decided in a proceedings before the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction and such questions cannot be decided by the revenue authorities inasmuch as even assuming for arguments sake upon demarcation being carried out, it was found that the Petitioner had trespassed into the area of the land of the Respondent No. 4, it being a purely civil dispute, the Revenue Authorities cannot evict the Petitioner. Under such circumstances, the exercise of jurisdiction to issue summons by the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner were outside the scope and jurisdiction of the said Authorities. 19. The learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the respondent authorities have proceeded on a completely misconceived notion that merely on the basis of cancellation of the non Indigenous Naga Page No.# 12/32 Inhabitant Certificate, the registered deeds of sale can be nullified. The learned Senior counsel submitted that in terms with the order dated 22.04.1976, the bar was only for transferring a land from tribal to non tribal and had no relevance when there is a transfer between two non tribals. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner further submitted that the Non-Naga Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate was issued to the father of the Petitioner in the year 2019. The father of the Petitioner expired in the year 2020 and subsequently, the Non-Naga Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate was cancelled in the year 2025. The said cancellation is contrary to the well settled principles of law, inasmuch as such cancellation could not have been done ex-parte that too against a dead person, when it is a settled principle of law that no action can be taken against a dead person. 20. Mr. Imti Imsong, the learned Additional AG submitted that Rule 26 of the Settlement Rules framed under Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (for short ‘the Regulation’) empowers the Commissioner to take up the issue pertaining to cancellation of the patta. In the instant case, what is being sought to be done is to carry out an enquiry which is required as per Rule 26 of the Settlement Rules Page No.# 13/32 thereby providing the Petitioner an opportunity to explain. The learned Additional AG submitted that the Petitioner rather appearing before the Commissioner who is the authority to decide the question of cancellation of the patta have approached this Court by filing the present proceedings. He therefore submitted that this Court ought not to entertain the instant writ petition at this stage. In so far as issuance of summon issued by the Deputy Commissioner is concerned, the said summon is only in respect to demarcation of the land and has nothing to do as regards any further action. 21. Mr. Imti Imsong, learned Additional AG further submitted that the Amending Act had amended Section 162 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 thereby inserting two Sub-Sections to Section 162. The learned Additional AG submitted that in terms with Sub-Section (2) of Section 162 of the Regulation as it stands adopted in the State of Nagaland, there cannot be any form of acquisition or possession of rights to any person other than the indigenous inhabitant of Nagaland over land in any area or areas constituted into belts or blocks in contravention of Sub- Section (1) of Section 162 of the Regulation. The learned Additional AG submitted that in terms with Sub-Section (3) of Section 162 of the Regulation, in so far as the same is Page No.# 14/32 applicable to the State of Nagaland, no documents evidencing any transaction for acquisition or possession of any land by way of transfer, exchange, lease, agreement or settlement shall be registered under the Registration Act, 1908 if it appears to the Registering Authority that the transaction had been affected in contravention of Sub-Section (2) of Section 162 of the Regulation. 22. Mr. Alezo Kire, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 4 on the other hand submitted that the land on the basis of which the Petitioner claims is a completely separate land from the land of the private Respondent No. 4. However, the Petitioner’s father who was running the wet canteen have tried to take over the possession of the land which belongs to the Respondent No. 4, i.e., Dag No. 7/89 and as such, the Respondent No. 4 sought for demarcation proceedings and in pursuance thereto joint verifications were carried out wherein it was found that the Petitioner had trespassed into the land of the Respondent No. 4. However, no action thereupon was taken by the Respondent Authorities which necessitated the Respondent No. 4 to file a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner for taking steps for eviction of the Petitioner from the land of the Respondent No. 4. In addition to that the Respondent No. 4 Page No.# 15/32 also sought directions for cancellation of the patta in the name of the Petitioner's father on the ground that there could not have been a valid transfer to the Petitioner’s father of the said land. He further submitted that there is a notification thereby constituting belts and blocks in the State of Nagaland in terms with Section 161 of the Regulation. 23. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 4 further submitted that pursuant to the Amending Act, the question of transferring land to any other person other than indigenous inhabitant of Nagaland does not arise. In that regard, the learned counsel also submitted that even while adopting the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act of 2002’) by the Legislature of the State of Nagaland which is a requirement in terms with Article 371A of the Constitution, it was clearly mandated that in the guise of taking action under the said Act of 2002, there cannot be a transfer of the assets to any person other than an indigenous inhabitant of Nagaland. In other words, the learned counsel submitted that the settled maxim of law that when a thing cannot be done directly, the same cannot be permitted to be done indirectly squarely applies to the present case. Page No.# 16/32 ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION: 24. The Order of the Government of Nagaland dated 22.04.1976 issued by the Chief Secretary specifically mandates that no documents evidencing any transaction for acquisition or possession of land by way of transfer, exchange lease, agreement or settlement should be registered between a tribal and non-tribal under the Registration Act, 1908. It was also directed that recommendations for settlement of land to non-locals and transfer of land from tribals to non- tribals or exchange of land, lease agreement etc. should be discouraged at all levels. It further directed that where exception is required to be made to the above directions, full justification for recommending such settlement or transfer of land should be furnished showing the particulars; antecedents and type of business or occupation held by the non-tribal if any; the duration of stay of such person in Nagaland and whether or not such person has any other land in his possession in Nagaland either in his own name or in the name of the family members. In other words, vide Order dated 22.04.1976 issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, a ban was imposed on the transfer, exchange, lease, agreement or settlement of land between a tribal to a non-tribal. Directions were also issued upon the Registering Page No.# 17/32 Authority under the Registration Act, 1908 to comply with the said directions. In addition to that above, it is also apparent that exception can be made to the directions subject to providing proper justification taking into consideration the details provided in the order itself. It is of relevance to note that the power exercised to issue the Order dated 22.04.1976 can be traced to Article 162 of the Constitution. 25. The Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 was extended to the Naga Hills district by a Notification No. 68P dated 01.02.1910 in exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Scheduled Districts Act, 1874 by the Lieutenant Governor of Eastern Bengal and Assam with the previous sanction of the Governor General in Council. This area wherein the Regulation was extended was formerly referred to as Naga Hills - Tuensang Area. 26. Section 26(1) of the State of Nagaland Act, 1962 stipulates that all laws in force, immediately before the appointment date i.e. 01.12.1963 in the Naga Hills - Tuensang Area shall continue in force in the State of Nagaland until altered, repealed or amended by a competent Legislature or other competent Authority. 27. Chapter X of the Regulation was adopted by the Page No.# 18/32 Nagaland Adaptation (Second) of Laws Order, 1965. This was necessary inasmuch as Chapter X of the Regulation was inserted to the Regulation only by the Assam Act XV of 1947. This chapter is with the heading “PROTECTION OF BACKWARD CLASSES” and contains provisions from Section 160 to Section 171. In terms with Section 160 of the Regulation, protection is provided to certain classes and visualises that the State Government may adopt such measures as it deemed fit for the protection of those classes, who on account of their primitive condition and lack of education or material advantages are incapable of looking after their welfare insofar as such welfare depends upon their having sufficient land for their maintenance. 28. Section 161 of the Regulation provides power to the State Government to constitute compact areas into belts and blocks. It is clear from a reading of Section 161 of the Regulation that before any action is taken for the constitution of belts and blocks, it is necessary for the State Government to specify the class of people whom it considers entitled to protection by various measures contemplated in Section 160(1) of the Regulation by issuance of Notification under Section 160(2) of the Regulation. In other words, without the Page No.# 19/32 Notification issued under Section 160(2) of the Regulation, the power under Section 161 of the Regulation cannot be exercised. This aspect is no longer res integra in view of the law laid down by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sirajuddin vs State of Assam reported in 1990 SCC OnLine Gau 76. Paragraph 8 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced herein under: “8. In our opinion, the power under section 161 of the Regulation presupposes the issue of notification under sub-section (2) of Section 160, i.e. that in the absence of any notification specifying the class of people under sub-section (2) of section 160 the power under section 161 of the Regulation for constitution of belt or block, cannot be exercised. It follows that no notification having been issued under sub-section (2) of Section 160, the impugned notification dated 6.12.78 (Annexure—C) cannot be sustained and has to be quashed.” 29. Section 162 of the Regulation at the time of adoption of Chapter X of the Regulation by the Nagaland Adaptation (Second) of Laws Order, 1965 reads as follows. “Extension of Chapter X to such areas.— 162. (1) The (State) Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, direct that the provisions of this Chapter shall apply to the areas or any of the areas, constituted into belts or blocks under the provisions of section 161. On such application, the disposal of land by lease for ordinary cultivation, the nature and extent of rights conveyed by annual or periodic leases, the termination, or forfeiture of such rights, the ejectment of persons in occupation who have no valid right in the land, the management or Page No.# 20/32 letting out in farm of land in certain circumstances by the Deputy Commissioner, and other allied or connected matters shall, so far as possible, be governed by the provisions of this Chapter and the rules made thereunder. Where this is not possible the Deputy Commissioner shall be guided by the spirit of the provisions of the foregoing Chapters of the Regulation and the Rules made thereunder. (2) The (State) Government may, in like manner, direct that the provisions of this chapter shall cease to apply to any area or areas or portions of any area or areas, to which they have been applied under the provisions of sub-section (1). (3) The application of the provisions of this chapter to any area as aforesaid will not affect. (a) land settled for special cultivation or purposes ancillary to special cultivation (including grants made for tea cultivation), (b) lakheraj, nisfkheraj or special estates settled with non- cultivators for their maintenance, which land and estates and the rights and interests therein shall continue to be governed by the provisions of the foregoing Chapters of the Regulation and the rules made thereunder.” 30. From a perusal of the Section 162 of the Regulation as it stood prior to the Amending Act would show that only upon constitution of the belts and blocks, the areas or any of the area constituted in the belts and blocks would come within the purview of Chapter X of the Regulation and accordingly, the rights over such lands comprised in the notified blocks and belts would be regulated by the provisions of Chapter X of the Regulation. It may not be out of place to Page No.# 21/32 mention that Chapter X of the Regulation is a Code by itself for dealing with lands constituted within the notified belts and blocks. 31. The Amending Act made changes to the Section 162 of the Regulation by inserting two Sub-Sections and thereby rearranging the remaining Sub-Sections of Section 162 of the Regulation. Section 2 of the Amending Act is reproduced herein under. “2. The following sub-section shall be inserted in Section 162 after sub- section (1) and the existing sub-section (2) and (3) shall be renumbered as sub-section (4) and (5): (2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law, usage, contract or agreement no person other than the indigenous inhabitants of Nagaland shall acquire or possess by transfer, exchange, lease agreement or settlement of any land in any area or areas constituted into belts or blocks in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1). (3) From and after the commencement of Nagaland Land and Revenue Regulation (Amendment) Act, 1978 no document evidencing any transaction for acquisition or possession of any land by way of transfer, exchange, lease, agreement or settlement shall be registered under the India Registration Act, 1908 if it appears to the Registering Authority that the transaction has been effected in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (2).” 32. From a perusal of the above quoted Section 2 of Page No.# 22/32 the Amending Act and more particularly the newly inserted Sub-Sections, it would show that Sub-Section (2) of Section 162 insofar as the same is applicable to the State of Nagaland, it starts with a non obstinate clause and further mandates no person other than an indigenous inhabitant of Nagaland shall acquire or possess by transfer, exchange, lease agreement or settlement of any land in any area or areas constituted in belts or blocks in contravention of Sub-Section (1) of Section 162. Sub-Section (3) of Section 162 in so far as the same is applicable to the State of Nagaland, also imposes a restriction upon the Registering authority to register any document evidencing any transaction for acquisition or possession of any land by way of transfer, exchange, lease if it appears to the Registering authority that the transaction has been affected in contravention of the provisions of Sub- Section (2) of Section 162, in so far as the same is applicable to the State of Nagaland. 33. In the backdrop of the above, this Court finds it relevant to take note of that admittedly, vide the registered sale deed dated 23.11.2009, a non tribal, i.e., Shri Bidyut Kumar Das transferred two plots of land admeasuring 1 Katha 15 lessas each out of 1 Bigha covered by Patta No. 1029 of Dag No. 7/1081 Mouza No. 2 located at Block 7 to one Shri Page No.# 23/32 Yavito Kiba and the father of the Petitioner. The said document is a registered document and taking into account that the Statutory Authority have registered the same, there is always a statutory presumption that the Statutory Authority i.e, the Sub-Registrar upon due satisfaction that there existed no contravention to Sub-Section (2) of Section 162 of the Regulation, in so far as the same is applicable to the State of Nagaland, have registered the said document in favour of the Petitioner's father along with another. 34. The Registered Deed of Sale dated 23.07.2010 by which another plot of land was transferred by one Shri Bidyut Kumar Das in favour of the father of the Petitioner whereby 2 Kathas of land contained in Dag No. 7/1089 included in patta no. 1029 was transferred in favour of the father of the Petitioner. Taking into account that the said document was registered by a Statutory authority, it has to be presumed that the said document was registered by the statutory authority after finding that there was no contravention to Sub-Section (2) of Section 162 of the Regulation in so far as the same is applicable to the State of Nagaland. 35. In the backdrop of the above, the question arises as to what is the effect of the Deeds of Sale executed by Shri Bidyut Kumar Das in favour of the father of the Petitioner and Page No.# 24/32 can the Revenue Authorities under the Regulation cancel the said Deeds of Sale. 36. Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 stipulates as to what documents are compulsorily registrable. All non- testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish whether in present or in future any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent of the value of Rs 100/- or above in respect to an immovable property is compulsorily registrable. The Deeds of Sale in question operate to create rights over the lands in question in favour of the father of the Petitioner and as such are compulsorily registrable and admittedly have been registered. 37. By the Deeds of Sale in question, Shri Bidyut Kumar Das had transferred by way of sale his rights over the lands which are the subject matter of the Deeds of Sale. Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 stipulates that a document required to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 upon being registered affects any immovable property comprised therein. In other words, in the context of the present case, upon the two Deeds of Sale being executed and registered, the rights over the lands which are subject matter of the two Deeds of Sale stood Page No.# 25/32 transferred by operation of law. The said Deed of Sale would also be evidence of the transaction of sale affecting the lands comprised therein and conferring the rights and power. 38. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was neither extended to the Naga Hills prior to independence nor prior to the creation of the State of Nagaland. Upon creation of the State of Nagaland by virtue of Article 371A(a)(iv) of the Constitution, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 had to be adopted by the Legislature of the State of Nagaland by a resolution for the same to be applicable. Under such circumstances, as till date such resolution have not been passed, the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 cannot be made applicable. 39. The above analysis would therefore show that though Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 would not apply in the State of Nagaland but a sale made thereby transferring the rights of an immovable property and registered under the Registration Act, 1908 would effect the transfer of the land in favour of the transferee. 40. The next question is whether the Revenue Authorities under the Regulation as adopted in the State of Nagaland can cancel or nullify the two Deeds of Sale. This Page No.# 26/32 issue is no longer res-integra in view of the judgement of the Supreme Court wherein the proposition of law was laid down that a Deed of Sale upon being registered can only be cancelled by a competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction. In the case of Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of M.P. & Others reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767, the Supreme Court observed that upon a Deed of Sale after being executed and registered cannot be cancelled by the Registering Authority. The only remedy available is to approach the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction. Paragraph Nos. 34, 36 and 40 being relevant are reproduced herein under. “34. The role of the Sub-Registrar (Registration) stands discharged, once the document is registered (see Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan). Section 17 of the 1908 Act deals with documents which require compulsory registration. Extinguishment deed is one such document referred to in Section 17(1)(b). Section 18 of the same Act deals with documents, registration whereof is optional. Section 20 of the Act deals with documents containing interlineations, blanks, erasures or alterations. Section 21 provides for description of property and maps or plans and Section 22 deals with the description of houses and land by reference to government maps and surveys. There is no express provision in the 1908 Act which empowers the Registrar to recall such registration. The fact whether the document was properly presented for registration cannot be reopened by the Registrar after its registration. The power to cancel the registration is a substantive matter. In absence of any express provision in that behalf, it is not open to assume that the Sub-Registrar (Registration) would be competent to cancel the Page No.# 27/32 registration of the documents in question. Similarly, the power of the Inspector General is limited to do superintendence of Registration Offices and make rules in that behalf. Even the Inspector General has no power to cancel the registration of any document which has already been registered. 36. If the document is required to be compulsorily registered, but while doing so some irregularity creeps in, that, by itself, cannot result in a fraudulent action of the State Authority. Non-presence of the other party to the extinguishment deed presented by the Society before the Registering Officer by no standard can be said to be a fraudulent action per se. The fact whether that was done deceitfully to cause loss and harm to the other party to the deed, is a question of fact which must be pleaded and proved by the party making such allegation. That fact cannot be presumed. Suffice it to observe that since the provisions in the 1908 Act enables the Registering Officer to register the documents presented for registration by one party and execution thereof to be admitted or denied by the other party thereafter, it is unfathomable as to how the registration of the document by following procedure specified in the 1908 Act can be said to be fraudulent. As aforementioned, some irregularity in the procedure committed during the registration process would not lead to a fraudulent execution and registration of the document, but a case of mere irregularity. In either case, the party aggrieved by such registration of document is free to challenge its validity before the civil court. 40. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Yanala Malleshwari was called upon to consider whether a person can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed and whether the Registering Officer like District Registrar and/or Sub-Registrar appointed by the State Government is bound to refuse registration when a cancellation deed is presented. The fact remains that if the stipulation contained in Sections Page No.# 28/32 17 and 18 of the 1908 Act are fulfilled, the Registering Officer is bound to register the document. The Registering Officer can refuse to register a document only in situations mentioned in sections such as Sections 19 to 22, 32 and 35. At the same time, once the document is registered, it is not open to the Registering Officer to cancel that registration even if his attention is invited to some irregularity committed during the registration of the document. The aggrieved party can challenge the registration and validity of the document before the civil court. The majority view of the Full Bench was that if a person is aggrieved by the extinguishment deed or its registration, his remedy is to seek appropriate relief in the civil court and a writ petition is not the proper remedy.” 41. Therefore, from the above observations of the Supreme Court, the Registering Authority would have no authority to cancel or nullify a duly executed and registered Deed of Sale. Now the question arises as to whether the Revenue Authorities can nullify or cancel the two Deeds of Sale. To do so, there has to be a power traced to the Registration Act, 1908. However no such power is conferred. Under such circumstances, the Revenue Authorities cannot cancel or nullify a Deed of Sale. Be that as it may, Chapter X of the Regulation is a Code by itself in respect to the lands notified as belts and blocks and the provisions of the said Chapter duly provides what actions can be taken. 42. The records further reveal that it was upon the Page No.# 29/32 two complaints filed by the Respondent No.4 which led to the issuance of the impugned summons. The first complaint was made to the Deputy Commissioner on account of inaction on the part of the Office of the Deputy Commissioner to take steps for eviction after having found that the Petitioner had trespassed into the land of the Respondent No. 4. It is in connection with this complaint, the Deputy Commissioner had issued the impugned summons. It is the opinion of this Court that the impugned summons of the Deputy Commissioner dated 05.08.2024 has to be limited only to ascertaining the boundaries of the land qua the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 4. The Deputy Commissioner who is a Revenue Authority has no power to assume the role of the Civil Court inasmuch as, it is the Civil Court who has the power to pass a decree for eviction when it involves land between two private individuals as in the instant case. 43. Let this Court now take up the question as to whether the Commissioner, Nagaland had the authority to issue the impugned summons. From a perusal of the summons, it is seen that hearing was fixed in connection with Rule 26 of the Settlement Rules which empowers the Commissioner to cancel any settlement made in contravention of the Settlement Rules, after giving the lease holder an Page No.# 30/32 opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the Commissioner, Nagaland had the authority to summon the Petitioner if it appears to the Commissioner, Nagaland that the settlement granted to the Petitioner’s father was in contravention of the Rules. It is also relevant to observe that the legality and validity of a settlement cannot be a subject matter before the Civil Court in view of the bar contained in Section 154(1)(a) of the Regulation. 44. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that the Respondent No. 3 has the authority to decide the question as to whether the settlement which was granted in favour of the Petitioner can be cancelled or not. Taking into account that the Respondent No.3 is authorized by law, this Court would not like to interfere with the summons dated 22.08.2025 as the same is permissible under law. CONCLUSION: 45. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:- (i) The Deeds of Sale executed in favour of the Petitioner’s father dated 23.11.2009 and 23.07.2010 cannot be cancelled by the Revenue authorities. It can only be done by a competent court of civil jurisdiction. Page No.# 31/32 (ii) Chapter X of the Regulation is a Code by itself in respect to lands notified as belts and blocks and the provisions of the said Chapter X duly provide what steps are required to be taken. (iii) The Respondent No. 3 has the jurisdiction to direct the Revenue Officials to carry out demarcation after identification of the land. But in doing so, the Respondent No. 3 i.e., the Deputy Commissioner cannot interfere with the possession of the parties in respect to the land. The same can only be done by a competent court of civil jurisdiction. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to quash the summons dated 05.08.2024 which shall be specifically limited to identification and demarcation of the land only. Liberty is given to the Respondent No. 3 to issue fresh summons providing a date for appearance taking into account that there was a stay to the said summons by this Court. The above observation shall not come in the way of the Deputy Commissioner to exercise jurisdiction under Chapter X of the Regulation by following the due process. (iv) The Respondent No. 2 in terms with Rule 26 of the Settlement Rules has the jurisdiction to decide as to whether the settlement granted is in contravention to the Rules and Page No.# 32/32 thereupon cancel the settlement if found that the settlement was in contravention to the Rules. Under such circumstances, the question of interference to the impugned summons issued by the Respondent No. 2 does not arise. Taking into account that this Court had stayed the summons, the Respondent No. 2 would be at liberty to issue fresh summons seeking appearance of the respective officials including the Petitioner. (v) The dispute pertaining between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 4 as regards alleged trespassing into the Respondent No. 4’s land by the Petitioner is a purely civil dispute which can be adjudicated before the Civil Court. (vi) The observations made in the present judgment shall not prejudice any of the parties in such subsequent or future proceedings or litigations. (vii) There shall be no order as to costs. (viii) Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. (ix) The present judgment shall not come in the way for the Petitioner to assail the cancellation of the Non-Naga Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate, if so advised. JUDGE Comparing Assistant