Page No.# 1/10 GAHC020000722024 2026:GAU-NL:148 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/22/2024 SHRI. HOKAPU S/O SHRI ISAK SUMI R/O SITIMI VILLAGE DISTRICT- KIPHIRE, NAGALAND - 798611 VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND 2:THE COMMISSIONER KOHIMA NAGALAND 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KIPHIRE NAGALAND 4:THE EXTRA ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SITIMI KIPHIRE NAGALAND 5:SMT. AMETOLI A ACHUMI GRADE IV MULTI TASKING STAFF O/O EAC SITIMI KIPHIRE NAGALAN Advocate for the Petitioner : N K LUIKHAM, C D RUNGSUNG Page No.# 2/10 Advocate for the State Respondent(s) : BICHANO KITHAN, GOVT ADV NL, Advocate for the Respondent(s) No. 5 : TOSHITEMJEN PONGENER BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 23.03.2026 Heard Mr. N.K. Luikham, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Ms. Bichano Kithan, learned Government Advocate who appears on behalf of the State Respondents and Mr. Toshitemjen Pongener, learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 5. 2. The Petitioner herein has approached this Court for setting aside the Letter dated 29.11.2023 communicating the approval for appointment of the Private Respondent No. 5, issued by the Office of the Commissioner, Nagaland and further, the Notification dated 12.12.2023, whereby the Private Respondent No. 5 was appointed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kiphire. The Petitioner have also sought for a direction to appoint the Petitioner against the vacant post of Grade-IV, Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) in terms with the Policy of the Government of Nagaland for granting appointment on land ownership basis. 3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition are that the Office of the Extra Assistant Commissioner (EAC), Sitimi Circle, Headquarter Kiphire was established in the year 1972 and the Petitioner claims that headquarters are standing and functioning over the land donated by the grandfather of the Petitioner. It is mentioned in the writ Page No.# 3/10 petition that there was a Written Agreement and Oral assurance of the Respondent Authorities that the family of the Petitioner would be granted an appointment in lieu of the land being donated. The Petitioner submitted an application in the month of April, 2023 for appointment to the post of Grade-IV on the land ownership basis against the post of Peon which fell vacant under the establishment of the Office of the EAC, Sitimi on the retirement of Shri Lithsamong on superannuation on 31.08.2020. The said application of the Petitioner was accompanied by the recommendation of the Member of the Legislative Assembly and a No Objection from the Head Gaonbura of Sitimi Village. The Petitioner was called for an interview on 22.09.2023 in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kiphire. It is alleged by the Petitioner that without considering the case of the Petitioner, the Commissioner, Government of Nagaland approved the appointment of the Private Respondent No. 5 against the vacant post of Peon, Grade-IV (MTS) in the Office of the EAC, Sitimi and communicated its approval to the Deputy Commissioner, Kiphire by Letter dated 29.11.2023 even though the Respondent No. 5 was not a landowner. It is the further case of the Petitioner that pursuant thereto, the Deputy Commissioner vide Notification dated 12.12.2023 appointed the Private Respondent No. 5 as MTS, Grade-IV post in the Deputy Commissioner’s Office under the District Administrative Department against the post lying vacant on the retirement of Shri Lithsamong Sangtam on 31.08.2020. The Petitioner thereupon being aggrieved had approached this Court by filing the writ petition on 19.02.2024. 5. The record reveals that this Court, vide an Order dated 22.02.2024 issued notice and observed that the appointment of the Respondent No. 5 Page No.# 4/10 shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. 6. The records further reveal that the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 had jointly filed an Affidavit-in-Opposition through the Additional Commissioner, Nagaland. It was mentioned that Shri Zughozhe, the grandfather of the Petitioner was one of the land donors of the site where the EAC Office, Sitimi stands. However, as per the Land Verification Report dated 09.04.2024 by the Dobashis the land is a common family land of Late Havikhe and his descendants. It was further mentioned that a detail Report of the EAC, Seyochung, dated 25.06.2022 was obtained pertaining to the status of employment of land donors of Sitimi Headquarters and it indicated therein that two landowners had already been employed by the Government. It was also mentioned that the Petitioner cannot claim another appointment on land ownership basis in perpetuity violating the Notification dated 05.03.2018. It was also mentioned that Shri Zughozhe was one of the signatories of the 1972 Agreement wherein it was mentioned that the land donated was a part of the family’s owned property. In addition to that, it was also stated that the Letter of the EAC, Sitimi dated 17.05.2006 reveals that the land housing GA quarters and EAC Office at Sitimi belongs to Shri Zughozhe and his brothers. It also mentions that one Shri Aheshe and Smti. A. Hosheli Sumi were appointed as Dak Runner and Mali respectively based on their land ownership on the land. 7. The Affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 5, however, is of relevance inasmuch as it appears therefrom that in respect to three posts an advertisement was issued on 18.08.2023, by the Office of the Deputy Page No.# 5/10 Commissioner, Kiphire. In pursuance to the said advertisement, a selection was held and the Respondent No. 5 alongwith two others were selected. It is further mentioned that in pursuance to that the Respondent No. 5 was appointed. In the said Affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 5 further details have been provided as regards the right of the Petitioner to claim appointment on landownership basis and it was mentioned that there were two persons who have been appointed on land ownership basis under the EAC Office, Sitimi. One was Shri Aheshe, who was appointed as Dak Runner on 08.08.2013 and was permanently absorbed in the services of the State whereas Smti. A. Hosheli Sumi was appointed as Mali on 14.01.2004 on contingency basis. The Orders of appointment of Shri Aheshe as well as Smti A. Hosheli Sumi have also been enclosed to the said Affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 5. 8. The record reveals that the Petitioner had filed Affidavits-in-Reply wherein the Petitioner denied that Shri Aheshe’s appointment as Dak Runner was on the basis of land ownership. Further to that, as regards the appointment of Smti. A. Hosheli Sumi, it is mentioned that the said person was only appointed on contingency basis, which is not in terms with the Notification dated 05.03.2018. 9. The records reveal that another joint Affidavit was filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 wherein at paragraph 5 it was mentioned that three individuals were appointed from the land donors’ family on land ownership basis, namely Shri Hevito appointed as Dobashi Shri Aheshe as Dakl Runner and Smti. A. Hosheli Sumi appointed as Mali. It was also mentioned that the father of the Petitioner is Shri Isak Sumi who was Page No.# 6/10 awarded contract of construction of EAC Sitimi quarters. Shri Hevito is the brother of Shri Isak Sumi and therefore, the Petitioner was not entitled to be appointed on land ownership basis. It was also mentioned that there was no conclusive evidence proving that the land donated for the construction of EAC was donated by Shri Zughozhe as the agreement do not specify the precise portion of the land contributed by each donor. It was also mentioned about the Agreement dated 14.02.2022 enlisting the donors which included Shri Zughozhe as one of the signatories. It is, however, stated that as per the Verification Report dated 09.04.2024, Report dated 25.06.2022 and the Letter dated 17.05.2006 shows that the donated land was a part of the common family property. It was denied that no descendants of Shri Zughozhe was appointed till date. It was further stated that as per the family tree verified by the Administrative Officers, multiple members of Shri Zughozhe had been appointed on the basis of land ownership. It was also contended that the appointment on land ownership basis cannot be on the basis of perpetuity. 10. This Court have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, who have made submissions in terms with their respective pleadings. 11. Two questions arises in the instant proceedings. First is as to whether the Petitioner, who claims appointment on land ownership basis can challenge the appointment of the Respondent No. 5 without challenging the very advertisement on the basis of which a regular selection process was initiated and the Respondent No. 5 alongwith two others were selected. The second question which arises is as to whether Page No.# 7/10 the Petitioner can claim a right for appointment on land ownership basis in respect to the post wherein the Respondent No. 5 was appointed. 12. This Court have perused the Notification dated 05.03.2018. From a perusal of the said Notification, it transpires that it is the policy of the State of Nagaland to honour the Written Agreement as well as the Oral Agreements prior to 26.07.2005, whereby land have been donated and there is a promise made for appointment to the family of the person who had donated the land. It is very pertinent to mention that appointment to public Office has to be done in consonance with Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. However, appointment on land ownership basis or for that matter appointment on compassionate basis are based upon policies of the Government. 13. In case of land ownership basis as stated above, the policy of the Government is to honour the Written Agreement or Oral Agreement where a promise is made by the Officials of the State to grant appointment to the family members of the donor in lieu of any compensation paid. In the case of compassionate appointment, it is the policy of the Government to provide an employment to a member of the family to override the hardships faced on account of the untimely demise of the sole bread earner of the family. 14. Under such circumstances, the appointments made on land ownership basis or appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be said to be a source of recruitment rather these type of appointments are exception to Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. Page No.# 8/10 15. The aforesaid aspect is of relevance in deciding the present dispute inasmuch as the Petitioner herein claims appointment on land ownership basis whereas the Respondent No. 5 have been appointed in pursuance to a selection process initiated by way of an advertisement. 16. It is that the case of the Petitioner herein that the post wherein the Respondent No. 5 was appointed could not have been advertised as it was solely reserved for land ownership basis. Under such circumstances, as the claim of the Petitioner is distinct from the right which has flown upon the Respondent No. 5 on the basis of the appointment made through a regular selection process, the Petitioner herein cannot assail the appointment of the Respondent No. 5. 17. The second question which arises in the instant proceedings is as to whether the Petitioner herein is at all entitled to appoint on land ownership basis. The Petitioner herein claims that no member of his family have been appointed on land ownership basis. However, the same have been denied by the Respondent Authorities as would be apparent from the pleadings as discussed herein above. 18. This Court finds it very pertinent to take note of the Notification dated 05.03.2018 wherein the Government of Nagaland had cast an obligation upon the Deputy Commissioner to factually decide the entitlement to be appointed on land ownership basis. The said adjudication is to be carried out by the Deputy Commissioner on the basis of Written Statements of the witnesses and other materials which would be placed by the person claiming such appointment on land ownership Page No.# 9/10 basis. It is the opinion of this Court that on the basis of pleadings before this Court in the instant writ petition wherein the Petitioner claims that he is entitled whereas the Respondents herein have denied the same, the said factual adjudication cannot be carried out by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also the opinion of this Court that as appointment on land ownership basis is a policy of the Government, it would be in the interest of Administrative convenience that when there is a claim raised for appointment on land ownership basis, the said claim be decided by the concerned Deputy Commissioner in terms with Clause 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) of the OM dated 05.03.2018 irrespective of as to whether the vacancy has arisen at that relevant time inasmuch as when a vacancy arises subsequently, the authorities need not wait for such adjudication be carried out for filing up the pact. 19. Considering the above, this Court, therefore, dispose of the writ petition with the following observations and directions:- (i) The challenge made in the instant writ petition to the Letter dated 29.11.2023 whereby the appointment of the Respondent No. 5 was approved as well as the challenge made to the Notification dated 12.12.2023 whereby the Private Respondent No. 5 was appointed, are rejected. (ii) The Respondent Authorities, more particularly the Respondent No. 3 is directed to decide as to whether the Petitioner’s claim to be appointed on land ownership basis has legs to stand in terms with the Notification dated 05.03.2018. Page No.# 10/10 (iii) The Petitioner is given the liberty to provide evidence in the form of Written Statement of witnesses as well as other documents before the Respondent No. 3 and the Respondent No. 3 thereupon shall decide the same and bring it to the attention of the concerned Authorities. (iv) This Court further observes and directs that in the circumstance the Respondent No. 3 decides that the Petitioner herein has a good claim for appointment on land ownership basis, the concerned Authorities shall duly take effective steps for consideration of the case of the Petitioner for appointment on land ownership basis as to when the vacancy arises in the EAC, Sitimi Circle, Kiphire. JUDGE Comparing Assistant