Page No.# 1/4 GAHC020000352025 2026:GAU-NL:153 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/14/2025 SMT. HETOLI CHISHI W/O LATE. NIHOTO CHISHI H/NO.1,NIHOTO VILLAGE NIULAND,NAGALAND VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND,KOHIMA,NAGALAND. 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NIULAND NAGALAND 3:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NIULAND NAGALAND 4:SHRI KHEKISHE H ZHIMO S/O HEKIYE ZHIMO R/O CHEKIYE VILLAGE CHUMOUKEDIMA NAGALAN Advocate for the Petitioner : P. B. PAUL, MEDO VERO,CHUBANUNGKUM,PFOSEKHO PFOTTE Advocate for the State Respondent : INAHOLI, GOVT ADV NL, Advocate for the Respondent(s) No. 4 : Z. ZHIMOMI Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 24.03.2026 Heard Mr. Pfosekho Pfotte, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, Ms. Inaholi, learned Government Advocate who appears on behalf of the State Respondents and Ms. Z. Zhimomi, learned counsel who appears on behalf of the Private Respondent No. 4. 2. The case of the Petitioner herein is that the Petitioner, who is an indigenous inhabitant of the State of Nagaland was allotted a plot of land ad measuring 5,600 sq.ft. by an allotment No. NL/DEV/12/92-93 dated 04.02.2010 situated at Niuland under Site Permit No. 683. Upon the said land the Petitioner had constructed a residential house. It is alleged on the basis of a complaint was made by the Respondent No. 4 the impugned Order dated 02.12.2024 was passed, whereby direction were issued to the Petitioner to demolish the structure within 45 (forty five) days from the date of issue of the Order dated 02.12.2024. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the Order dated 02.12.2024 approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. The record reveals that this Court, vide an Order dated 13.02.2025 issued Notice and stayed the impugned Order dated 02.12.2024. 4. The records reveal that the State Respondents have filed an Affidavit wherein it is mentioned that the husband of the Petitioner was issued the Page No.# 3/4 Site Permit for Sl. No. 568 with specific boundaries whereas the Respondent No. 4 was issued the Site Permit No. 567 with specific boundaries. It is also mentioned that upon spot verification being carried out, it was found that the husband of the Petitioner was occupying the land of the Respondent No. 4 and as such, there was a direction issued to the husband of the Petitioner to vacate the land of the Respondent No. 4. It is also mentioned that the husband of the Petitioner had also made a request to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Niuland, Nagaland, to give the husband of the Petitioner an alternative site in lieu of the Site Permit No. 683 issued to the Petitioner. It is also seen from the enclosures to the Affidavit-in-Opposition that various Orders have been passed against the husband of the Petitioner for vacating the land pertaining to Site Permit No. 567 but the husband of the Petitioner did not do so. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner and her husband are presently occupying the land which has been specifically allotted to her and her husband and not as per what has been mentioned in the impugned Order as well as the enclosures to the Affidavit-in-Opposition. 5. Upon hearing the learned counsels it appears that the Petitioner have raised serious disputed question of facts as to who is in possession of the land, or for that matter, the possession of the land by the Petitioner alongwith her husband is in respect of the Site Permit No. 567 or Site Permit No. 568. 6. These disputed question of facts cannot be adjudicated in the Page No.# 4/4 proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition on the ground that the instant writ petition raises serious disputed question of facts. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 7. Before parting with the record this Court, however, observes that the instant writ petition being not entertained as it raises disputed question of facts, the dismissal of the instant writ petition should not preclude the Petitioner to approach competent Court of Civil jurisdiction, if so advised. It is also observed that the dismissal of the instant proceedings shall not prejudice the Petitioner, if any suit is filed. 8. This Court further takes note of that as an interim order the said interim order is operating since 13.02.2025 and if the said interim order is not extended for a limited duration, the Petitioner would be seriously prejudiced. Accordingly, for a period of 30 (thirty) days from today, the impugned Order dated 02.12.2024 shall remain stayed. It is clarified that if the Petitioner approaches the civil court, the said court shall consider whether there is a requirement for passing any injunction or not independent of the present directions. JUDGE Comparing Assistant