WP(C) 241/2022

Page 1 of 22

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)

KOHIMA BENCH

WP(C) No. 241/2022

1. Marsanen Ozukum,

S/o Late Toshimanen Ozukum,

Resident of Lower Chandmari Colony,

Kohima Town, Nagaland-797001.

2. Aotula Ozukum,

W/o Late Toshimanen Ozukum,

Resident of Lower Chandmari Colony,

Kohima Town, Nagaland-797001.

3. Supongwabang Ozukum,

S/o Late Toshimanen Ozukum,

Resident of Lower Chandmari Colony,

Kohima Town, Nagaland-797001.

4. Roasenla Ozukum,

D/o Late Toshimanen Ozukum,

Resident of Lower Chandmari Colony,

Kohima Town, Nagaland-797001.

5. Moajungba Ozukum

S/o Late Toshimanen Ozukum,

Resident of Lower Chandmari Colony,

Kohima Town, Nagaland-797001.

All are legal representatives of the deceased petitioner-

Late Toshimanen Ozukum,

S/o Late Mapozulu,

Resident of Lower Chandmari, Kohima Town,

Nagaland.

……Petitioners.

-Versus-

1. The State of Nagaland,

GAHC020006332022

2026:GAU-NL:201

WP(C) 241/2022

Page 2 of 22

Represented by the Commissioner & Secretary,

Department of Urban Development,

Government of Nagaland, Kohima.

2. The Director,

Directorate of Urban Development Department,

Nagaland, Kohima.

3. The Commissioner,

Kohima, Nagaland.

4. The Deputy Commissioner,

Kohima, Nagaland.

5. The First Class Magistrate,

Office of the Deputy Commissioner,

Kohima, Nagaland.

……Respondents.

For the Petitioners : Mr. L. Iralu,

Medo Kiewhuo,

Khriezo Kirha.

……Advocates.

For the Respondents : Mr. I. Imsong, Addl. AG, Nagaland.

……Advocate.

BEFORE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

Date(s) of Hearing :- 27.01.2026

Date on which judgment is reserved :- 27.01.2026

Date of pronouncement of judgment :- 06.04.2026

Whether the pronouncement is of the :- N/A

WP(C) 241/2022

Page 3 of 22

operative part of the judgment?

Whether the full judgment has been

pronounced?

:- Yes

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

Heard Mr. L. Iralu, learned counsel for the petitioners and also

heard Mr. I. Imsong, learned Additional Advocate General, Govt. of

Nagaland, appearing for the State respondents.

2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the

petitioners have challenged two Eviction Notices, dated

17.03.2021 (Annexure-P6) and dated 19.10.2022 (Annexure-P21)

also the order dated 08.07.2022 (Annexure-P20). Alternatively, the

petitioners also prayed for issuing direction to the respondent Nos.4 and

5, to conduct proper survey and verification as directed by the

respondent No.3, in the order dated 08.07.2022.

3. The background facts leading to filing of the present petition are

briefly stated as under:-

“The present petitioners are the legal representatives of the

deceased employee, namely, Late Toshimanen Ozukum. While the

predecessor of the present petitioners, namely, Late Toshimanen

Ozukum was serving as the Town Planner, under the erstwhile

Office of the Chief Town Planner, had purchased two plots of land

in the year 1998 located on the opposite side of a building at Lower

Chandmari, Kohima. Later on, he was told that the building was a

quarter belonging to the Town Planning Department, now re-

WP(C) 241/2022

Page 4 of 22

designate as Urban Development Department. As such, the

predecessor of the petitioners had occupied the quarter on the

basis of an allotment order. The said quarter was identified as

Quarter No.CH/TP-1. There was no electricity or water supply

connection in the said quarter and the predecessor of the present

petitioners, had at his own expense, connected both power as well

as water supply, to the said quarter and also he had renovated and

refurbished the said quarter at his own expense and constructed

brick fencing wall, around the entire premises and also constructed

RCC porch and RCC room adjoining the quarter and paid the

electricity and water bills himself.

Thereafter, he retired on superannuation and after his

retirement he received a show-cause notice under Section 5 of the

Nagaland Eviction of Persons in Unauthorized Occupation of Public

Land Act, 1971, asking him to show-cause as to why he should not

be evicted for illegally occupying the quarter belonging to the

Directorate of Urban Development, Nagaland, Kohima.The

predecessor of the present petitioners then submitted his reply on

30.09.2020, stating that he had purchased the land from the

ancestral landowners as there was no record of the Government

acquiring the land and thereafter, an eviction notice was issued to

him on 17.03.2021, without any material particulars to show how

he was in unauthorized occupation of public land.

Thereafter, the predecessor of the present petitioners and the

landowner had submitted RTI applications to the concerned

authorities on 26.03.2021. And while they were awaiting for the

RTI replies, the predecessor of the present petitioners filed an

WP(C) 241/2022

Page 5 of 22

appeal against the eviction notice under Section 12 of the Act.

Then, during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner as well as

the landowner had received the replies on the RTI queries and in

the said replies it was disclosed that the respondent No.2 i.e. the

Directorate of Urban Development, had categorically stated that

there was no such quarter as CH/TP-1 in their building inventory

list. The Deputy Commissioner, Kohima had also replied to one of

the queries stating that there was no land allotment or patta issued

to the Urban Development Department in Kohima Town, except for

one at P.R. Hill for multi-parking. It was also answered to a query

as to whether the Government had acquired any land at Lower

Chandmari, that the Government had acquired 9.05 acres of land

from two individuals at Chandmari. But, there was no trace map or

no information as to where exactly was this acquired land situated

and the receipt also indicates that the land appeared to have been

acquired only in 1971, whereas the quarter was built in 1967.

Thereafter, the predecessor of the present petitioners had

enclosed the said RTI replies and filed them before the Respondent

No.3. But the respondent No.3, without considering the material

particulars came to an erroneous, arbitrary and perverse conclusion

that the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of public

premises. But, the respondent No.3 also directed the Deputy

Commissioner, Kohima to proceed with eviction only after proper

survey and verification of the land. And in that view of the matter,

the respondent No.3 could not have come to a finding that the

petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of public premises and

then direct the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima to properly survey

and verify the land, and this goes to show that no enquiry was

WP(C) 241/2022

Page 6 of 22

done as provided under Section 6 of the Act to conclude that there

is unauthorized occupation of public land and without proper

survey and verification, the eviction notice has been issued to the

petitioner on 19.10.2022, giving him 7 days time to vacate the

same.”

4. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed their affidavit-in-opposition.

In their affidavit, they had taken a stand that the petition is not

maintainable, as nowhere, they have raised any question of law for

invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and that the petition

is also not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the

Urban Development Department is a necessary and material party and

that the Director cannot represent the Urban Department and that no

fundamental/legal right of the petitioner has been violated by the

respondents and that the Notice No.REV/URBAN/DEV/2009 (PT -

I)/383, dated 18.09.2020 , under Section 5(1) of the Nagaland

Eviction of Persons in Unauthorized Occupation of Public Land Act, 1971

was not issued to the petitioners. Besides, the Government Quarter

No.CH/TP-1, (Type VI), allotted to him at any point of time and that

the predecessor of the present petitioners did not vacate the Government

Quarter No.CH/TP-1, Type VI, allotted to him vide order No.TPO/G-

76/91-92/830, dated 27.05.1998 (Annexure-P4 of the writ petition) and

an eviction notice bearing No.UD/T-135/04/(Pt II)/513, dated 04.09.2019

was issued by the Department in pursuance to the Government

Notification No.UDD/2/ESTT/10/MISC/2015, dated 08.07.2019 and as per

clause (iv) and (v) of the Government Office Memorandum No.SAB-

11/10/95, dated 14.03.2005, the employee had to vacate the

Government quarter within 1 (one) month and imposed penalty for

WP(C) 241/2022

Page 7 of 22

overstay, amounting to Rs.1,54,000/- only (one lakh fifty four thousand

only), which is 10 times the normal rent from the date of retirement till

July 2019.

However, the predecessor of the petitioners had failed to comply

with the eviction notice dated 04.09.2019, and as such, by the letter

No.UDT/T-135/04/(Pt-II)2025, dated 16.03.2020, addressed to the

respondents for appropriate action against the predecessor of the

petitioners for non-compliance of the eviction notice and for illegally

occupying the Government quarter as per the Government Rules and

Regulations. And thereafter, the vacation notice dated 18.09.2020, was

issued on the ground that the predecessor of the petitioners was illegally

occupying the Government Quarter No.CH/TP-1 belonging to the

Directorate of Urban Development, Nagaland, Kohima and hence the

predecessor of the petitioners was directed to vacate the same within 1

(one) month of the notice and it is clear that the predecessor of the

petitioners has been occupying the Government Quarter No.CH/TP-1,

Type VI, situated at Chandmari Colony, Kohima and is still occupying

even after his retirement from service illegally and unauthorizedly and

that the predecessor of the petitioners vide his application dated

27.02.1998 applied for allotment of department quarter No.CH/TP-1 at

Chandmari, Kohima, which was allotted to him which preposterously

disputing the right and ownership of the same. It is also stated that the

plot of land, where the Government quarter stood, was purchased by the

British Government way back in the year 1935, from the landowners and

the same falls within the 1934-35 settlement map of Kohima, which was

subsequently inherited by the State Government from the Britishers and

the land is covered by the map of compensated areas of Kohima Town.

WP(C) 241/2022

Page 8 of 22

It is also stated that the predecessor of the petitioners is trying to

become the owner of the property illegally and fraudulently by

approaching this Court and sometimes in the year 2006, the predecessor

of the petitioners while serving as Senior Town Planner, was transferred

to Dimapur, for which by the Order No. UD/T-76/2001/583, dated

21.02.2007, the predecessor of the petitioners was requested to vacate

the quarter occupied by him at Chandmari, but due to non-compliance of

the said order, the department contemplated for necessary action against

him, vide Order No. UD/ESTT-76/04/(PT-1), dated 25.04.2007 and as

such, predecessor of the petitioners had vacated the quarter and

concomitantly tendered his apology vide letter dated 20.09.2007.

Subsequently, the predecessor of the petitioners, vide his letter dated

31.10.2007, inter alia stated that he had occupied the departmental

quarter No.CH/TP-1, Type VI, at Chandmari, Kohima and trying his level

best to cancel the land transaction and protect the quarter from further

encroachment by private individual. It is also stated that the predecessor

of the petitioners was allotted Government Quarter No.CH/TP-1, Type

VI, vide order No.TPO/G-76/91-92, dated 27.05.1998.

However, the RTI query sought information for quarter

No.CH/TP-1, Type V, and that the Executive Engineer is not the

quarter allotment authority and he lacks the necessary information and

he also sought information for quarter No.CH/TP-1, Type VII and

that there was no procedural lapse and the impugned order was duly

passed by the competent authority i.e. the Commissioner, Nagaland in

the impugned order dated 08.07.2022, had specifically been noted that

the predecessor of the petitioners had not approached the said appellate

authority with clean hands, and mislead the appellate authority by

WP(C) 241/2022

Page 9 of 22

suppressing facts on record to obtain Stay Order of the eviction notice,

dated 17.03.2021. It is also stated that eviction order dated 17.03.2021,

was passed after the compliance of all the required procedure and the

question of exercising survey and verification of the land in question does

not arise as the petitioner was found to be in illegal possession of the

Government property. And under the aforementioned facts and

circumstances, it is contended to dismiss the petition.

5. The petitioners have filed their affidavit-in-reply to the aforesaid

affidavit in opposition of the respondent authorities, wherein he had

denied all the statement and averment made by the respondent Nos.1

and 2 in the affidavit-in-opposition.

6. Mr. Iralu, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that though

the predecessor of the present petitioners was serving in the Urban

Development Department as Town Planner, he had purchased the land,

where the quarter is presently situated and the abandoned quarter which

was standing there, was repaired by him and thereafter, he has been

possessing the same. Further, Mr. Iralu submits that the impugned orders

were issued without complying with the relevant provisions of law and

also the RTI replies obtained by the predecessor of the petitioners from

different authorities, shows that the alleged quarter No.CH/TP-1, VI

was not in existence in the records of the Department of Town and

Country Planning and the impugned notices and eviction orders were

issued without a proper survey and verification of the land in question

and that the predecessor of the petitioners renovated the abandoned

quarter by connecting electricity and water supply and refurbished the

same and also renovated the same by constructing boundary wall. And

on such count, Mr. Iralu submits, the two impugned Eviction Notices,

WP(C) 241/2022

Page 10 of 22

dated 17.03.2021 (Annexure-P6) and dated 19.10.2022

(Annexure-P21) also the order dated 08.07.2022 (Annexure-P20),

are so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person would have

ever arrived at the same and as such the same are liable to be set aside.

Under such circumstance, he has contended to allow this petition.

6.1. Mr. Iralu has also referred one decision of this Court in

(i) M. Jongshi & Ors. vs. State of Nagaland & Ors. ,

reported in 2017 (1) GLT 668.

(ii) State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Smt. Shiv Kunwarbai,

etc., reported in (1971) 2 SCC 152;

(iii) Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Thummala Krishna

Rao & Anr., reported in (1982) 2 SCC 134;

(iv) State of Rajasthan v s. Padmavati Devi (Smt)

(Dead) by LRs. & Ors., reported in 1995 Supp (2) SCC

290; and

(v) Sulochana Chandrakant Galande v s. Pune Municipal

Transport and Ors., reported in (2010) 8 SCC 467.

7. Per contra, Mr. Imsong, learned Additional Advocate General,

Government of Nagaland, submits that the quarter was allotted to the

predecessor of the petitioners and he has been occupying the same

unauthorizedly, and though he has taken a plea that he has purchased

the same by executing one sale deed, yet, the said sale deed was not

registered in spite of the value of the land in question, being more than

Rs.3,00,000/-. Referring to Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 Mr.

WP(C) 241/2022

Page 11 of 22

Imsong submits that the said Section requires that any immovable

property of worth Rs. 100 shall be compulsorily registered.

7.1. Mr. Imsong also submits that the claim made by the predecessor

of the petitioners, has no legal basis, and the documents, based on

which, he claimed ownership of the land is untenable for not being

registered documents, in view of the provision of Section 17 of the

Registration Act, 1908. Further, Mr. Imsong, referring to various

annexure, so filed along with the affidavit of the respondent authorities,

submits that the predecessor of the petitioners had applied for the

quarter vide Annexure-1 of the affidavit-in-opposition on 27.02.1998,

while he was working as Town Planner in Kohima and on 27.05.1998, the

quarter was allotted to him, being Quarter No.CH/TP-1, Type VI and

that even after retirement also he had occupied the same and after his

death, the present petitioners have been occupying the same, for which

eviction notice dated 04.09.2019, was issued to him asking him to vacate

the same within a period of one month. But, he failed to vacate the same

and thereafter, the Directorate of Urban Development, Nagaland,

Kohima, vide Annexure-4, a letter dated 16.03.2020, had asked the

Deputy Commissioner, Kohima to initiate appropriate action, as per

Government Rules and Reg ulations. And thereafter, the Deputy

Commissioner, vide letter dated 18.09.2020, had issued vacation notice,

to vacate the quarter within one month. Mr. Imsong, drawing the

attention of this Court to Annexure-6, which is a notice dated 06.02.1984,

submits that no private individual can claim land within the 1934-35

settlement map of Kohima.He further drew the attention of this Court to

Annexure-7, by which the predecessor of the petitioners, was asked on

21.02.2007, to vacate the quarter occupied by him on his transfer as

Senior Town Planner/Secretary to Dimapur, and then vide letter dated

WP(C) 241/2022

Page 12 of 22

25.04.2007 (Annexure-8), the Chief Town Planner asked the Principal

Secretary, Urban Development Department, Nagaland, Kohima to take

action against the predecessor of the petitioners and thereafter, vide

Annexure-9, the predecessor of the petitioners had tendered an apology

and requested to consider his case on humanitarian ground and also to

send him back to the Development Authority, so that he could carry on

the ongoing project and complete the same within the scheduled time

and vide Annexure-10, the predecessor of the petitioners had requested

the Chief Town Planner, Nagaland, Kohima regarding land settlement and

the allotment of the quarter and that the claim of the predecessor of the

petitioners was not founded upon any legal basis and under such

circumstances, he has contended to dismiss this petition.

8. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the

parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the

documents placed on record and also gone through the decisions referred

by learned counsel for both the parties.

9. It appears that the predecessor of the petitioners had claimed that

he purchased the land by executing a sale deed dated 16.03.1998, by

paying a sum of Rs.80,000/-, measuring (1) 74’ X 33’ (ft) and (2) 59’ X

18’ (ft), respectively. But, it appears that the alleged sale deed has not

been registered despite the value of the same being more than Rs.100/

as required by Section 17 of the Registration Act 1908. Mr. Imsong,

learned Additional Advocate General, has, however, pointed out that the

value of the land would be about Rs.3,00,000/-. And as such, the

unregistered sale deed, by which he allegedly claimed having purchased

the land, cannot be relied upon as the same had no legal sanctity.

WP(C) 241/2022

Page 13 of 22

10. Further, from Annexure-4 of the petition, which is an allotment

order dated 27.05.1998, indicates that the predecessor of the petitioners

was allotted Type VI quarter No.CH/TP-1 and further, from various

annexure, so exhibited by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, goes a

long way to show that the said quarter was allotted to the predecessor of

the petitioners while he was serving as Town Planner in Urban

Development Department in Kohima. It also appears from the Annexure-

9 of the affidavit-in-opposition, filed by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 that

the predecessor of the petitioners had tendered apology to the Principal

Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Nagaland,

assigning the reason for which he could not vacate the quarter in time.

11. Thus, from the various documents, which are annexed to the

affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, even from his

own document, Annexure-P-4, the allotment order dated 27.05.1998, it

becomes apparent that the Type VI Quarter No.CH/TP-1 was allotted

to him. For ready reference the Annexure-P-4 is extracted herein below:-

GOVERNMENT OF NA GALAND

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER

NAGALAND, KOHIMA

ORDER

Dated Kohima the May 98

No. TPO/G-76/91-92. The following Govt. Quarters are hereby allotted

to the following officer and staff with immediate effect, as recommended

by the Accommodation Board.

WP(C) 241/2022

Page 14 of 22

Sl. No. Name of Designation Type of Qr. & No.

1. Shri. M ToshimenenT P. VI No. CH/TP-1

2. Smt. Megoukieno L.D.A No. JH/TP-5

3. Smt. Ngangshitulas.A I No. PWD/337

4. Smt. Kezhadi leno P/Astt. III No. LERIE/TP-9

5. Shri. J.T Anungba Surveyor III No. LERIE/TP-10

Sd./

(KEN KEDITSU)

Sd/-Senior Town Planner

Nagaland, Kohima.

12. And admittedly, the same was not vacated till date, even after his

retirement. And though several notices were issued to him to vacate the

same, he failed to vacate the same. Instead, on the basis of an

unregistered sale deed, he claimed ownership of the land and disputing

the authority of the department over the said plot of land.

13. Though the predecessor of the petitioners had disputed existence

of the quarter by producing some RTI replies, Annexure-P4-A, yet, it

appears that the said reply relates to Type V quarter. Said reply is

extracted herein below for ready reference.

GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD(H)

CENTRAL DIVISION: KOHIMA

No. EE/CD/TB-8/2009-10-2 Dated, Kohima the 11

th

June 2018

WP(C) 241/2022

Page 15 of 22

To

The Chief Engineer, PWD(H)

Nagaland, Kohima.

Sub: Submission of Inspection Report of Qtr.No. CH/TP-1.

Sir. With reference to the subject cited above, I have the honor to submit

herewith the following Inspection report of Govt. Qtr.No. CH/TP-I.

1. The said Govt. Qtr. No. CH/TP-I is under building register/book.

2. The said Govt. Qtr. is Type-V as per the record.

3. The building was constructed in the year around 1967 as per the

record.

4. On inspecting the building, it is found that the said building is

deteriorating.

This is for your kind information and further necessary action please.

Enclosed: As stated.

Yours faithfully.

(Er. OLEMCHILA.I. YADEN)

Executive Engineer, PWD (H)

Central Division: Kohima.

13.1. The RTI application Annexure-P-10 indicates that reply was

sought for in respect of UD/CH-1, Type-VII and Type V quarters. The

application is extracted herein below for ready reference:-

To

The Executive Engineer

Town Planning Works Division

Nagaland: Kohima

WP(C) 241/2022

Page 16 of 22

Sub:- Seeking information through RTI Act

Sir,

I shall be highly grateful if you would kindly provide the

following information under the above RTI Act:

1. What was the total expenditure incurred in the construction of

quarter NO UD/CH-1 type V11 by the department in Lower

Chandmari Kohima ? Please provide a photo copy of the total

expenditure amount.

2. Who was the contractor who constructed the above mentioned

quarter and the year of completion. Please provide a photo

copy of the registration card of the contractor.

3. Whether your department has spent any amount in the

construction of boundary wall, renovation and rewiring of the

government quarter NO.CH/TP-1 type V in Lower Chandmari? If

so, please provide a photo copy of the expenditure voucher.

4. If yes as in para 3 above please reply who has done the work

and in which year.

Please reply within a period of 30 days from today the 26th March,

2021.As per rule, I attached herewith Rs 10/-(Rupees ten) in cash.

Attached :Rs 10/-.

Yours faithfully,

Sd./

(Setu Angami)

Kohima Village

14. And as such, the attempt, so made by the petitioners, to convince

this Court, regarding non-existence of the quarter, is not only misleading,

but also an abuse of the process of the Court.

WP(C) 241/2022

Page 17 of 22

15. It is not in dispute that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article

226 of the Constitution of India is an equitable jurisdiction. In view of the

apology tendered by the predecessor of the petitioners and also various

letters and orders annexed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 along with the

petition, left no iota of doubt in the mind of this Court that the claim

being made by the predecessor of the petitioners is illegal and cannot be

acceded to. As such the petitioners herein are not entitled to any relief on

equity.

16. It is also well settled that decisions rendered by administrative

authorities can be interfered with by high courts in exercise of Article 226

powers, however, sparingly. In the case of W.B. Central School

Service Commission v. Abdul Halim reported in (2019) 18 SCC

39, while considering the scope of interference under Article 226 in an

administrative action, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:-

‚31. In exercise of its power of judicial review,

the Court is to see whether the decision impugned

is vitiated by an apparent error of law. The test

to determine whether a decision is vitiated by

error apparent on the face of the record is whether

the error is self evident on the face of the record

or whether the error requires examination or

argument to establish it. If an error has to be

established by a process of reasoning, on points

where there may reas onably be two opinions, it

cannot be said to be an error on the face of the

record, as held by this Court in Satyanarayan

Laxminarayan Hegde v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa

Tirumale [Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v.

Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137] .

If the provision of a statutory rule is reasonably

capable of two or more constructions and one

WP(C) 241/2022

Page 18 of 22

construction has been adopted, the decision would

not be open to interference by the writ court. It

is only an obvious misinterpretation of a relevant

statutory provision, or ignorance or disregard

thereof, or a decision founded on reasons which are

clearly wrong in law, which can be corrected by the

writ court by issuance of writ of certiorari.

32. The sweep of power under Article 226 may be

wide enough to quash unreasonable orders. If a

decision is so arbitrary and capricious that no

reasonable person could have ever arrived at it,

the same is liable to be struck down by a writ

court. If the decision cannot rationally be

supported by the materials on r ecord, the same may

be regarded as perverse. 33. However, the power of

the Court to examine the reasonableness of an order

of the authorities does not enable the Court to

look into the sufficiency of the grounds in support

of a decision to examine the meri ts of the

decision, sitting as if in appeal over the

decision. The test is not what the Court considers

reasonable or unreasonable but a decision which the

Court thinks that no reasonable person could have

taken, which has led to manifest injustice. The

writ court does not interfere, because a decision

is not perfect.’ (emphasis supplied)

17. The aforesaid decision was approved by a further decision of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Neemuch vs. Mahadeo

Real Estate reported in (2019) 10 SCC 738, wherein it was held

that:

‚14. It could thus be seen that the scope of

judicial review of an administrative action is very

limited. Unless the Court comes to a conclusion

WP(C) 241/2022

Page 19 of 22

that the decision-maker has not understood the law

correctly that regulates his decision-making power

or when it is found that the decision of the

decision-maker is vitiated by irrationality and

that too on the principle of ‘Wednesbury

unreasonableness’ or unless it is found that there

has been a procedural impropriety in the decisi on

making process, it would not be permissible for the

High Court to interfere in the decision -making

process. It is also equally well settled that it is

not permissible for the Court to examine the

validity of the decision but this Court can examine

only the correctness of the decision -making

process. ***

16. It could thus be seen that an interference

by the High Court would be warranted only when the

decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error

of law i.e. when the error is apparent on the fac e

of the record and is self -evident. The High Court

would be empowered to exercise the powers when it

finds that the decision impugned is so arbitrary

and capricious that no reasonable person would have

ever arrived at. It has been reiterated that the

test is not what the Court considers reasonable or

unreasonable but a decision which the Court thinks

that no reasonable person could have taken. Not

only this, but such a decision must have led to

manifest injustice.‛

(emphasis supplied)

18. In the instant case, the petitioners have failed to demonstrate that

two Eviction Notices, dated 17.03.2021 (Annexure-P6) and

dated 19.10.2022 (Annexure -P21) also the order dated

08.07.2022 (Annexure-P20), suffers from any infirmity or illegality.

Nothing is also placed on record to that effect and also nothing could be

WP(C) 241/2022

Page 20 of 22

demonstrated from the record about any procedural lapse in passing the

impugned order and in issuing eviction notices. Thus, having examined

the impugned Eviction Notices and the impugned order, in the light of the

proposition laid down in the cases discussed herein above, this court is

unable to agree with the submission of Mr. Iralu, the learned counsel for

the petitioners, that the two impugned Eviction Notices, dated

17.03.2021 (Annexure-P6) and dated 19.10.2022 (Annexure-P21)

also the order dated 08.07.2022 (Annexure -P20), are so arbitrary

and capricious that no reasonable person would have ever arrived at.

19. Rather, it appears that the claim of the petitioners and their

predecessor appears to be not a bona-fide one, in view of the Annexure-9

of the affidavit in opposition of the respondent authorities, vide which the

predecessor of the petitioners had tendered an apology and to consider

his case on humanitarian ground and also to send him back to the

Development Authority, when vide letter dated 25.04.2007, (Annexure-

8), the Chief Town Planner had asked the Principal Secretary, Urban

Development Department, Nagaland, Kohima to take action against him.

In the said letter he had admitted having occupied the quarter at

Chandmari and also admitted having committed mistake in not vacating

the quarter. Said letter is extracted herein below for ready reference:-

To,

The Principal Secretary,

Urban Development Department Government of Nagaland.

Sub: Tender of apology

Sir,

WP(C) 241/2022

Page 21 of 22

With reference to the subject cited above, I have the honour to

state the following few lines for favour of your kind consideration and

sympathetic action. That I have been working as Secretary

Development Authority Nagaland since July 2006. After I have been

posted to the Development Authority Dimapur the department of

Urban Development issued an order to vacate the quarter

at Chandmari. Since I have applied for up-gradation of my post to

Addl. Chief Town Planner. I was in the hope of coming back soon.

That is why I did no vacate the quarter on time which I

should have not done. The mistake has been rectified and

in compliance of the order I have vacated the quarter.

Meanwhile I have been directed to relieve from the Secretary of DAN

till further order vide order NO.UDD/DAN-6/1/2004 dated Kohima the

23rd April 2007.

During the process of trying to restructure Development Authority

Nagaland there has been omission and commission on my part and I

did not consult my Senior officer in decision making which is highly

regretted. Now I tender my apology and swear that in future I shall

not repeat the same and work only within the power vested on me.

I therefore request you to kindly consider my case on

humanitarian ground and send me back to the Development Authority

so that I can carry on the on-going Project and complete within the

schedule of time or cross transfer me with Zanbemo Ngullie as he is

also overburdened to look after DAN and SUDA which are located at

two different Districts and for which act of kindness I shall remain ever

grateful to you.

Yours faithfully,

(M. Toshimanen)

Senior Town Planner and relieved Secretary DAN

Copy to:-

WP(C) 241/2022

Page 22 of 22

The Chief Town Planner Nagaland Kohima for information and

necessary action.

(M. Toshimanen)

20. This court has gone through the decisions, so referred by Iralu, and

is of the view that the propositions, so laid down in the said cases,

proceeds on their own fact and not applicable in all force to the given

facts and circumstances of the case in hand. The petitioners herein have

failed to demonstrate bona-fide claim over the premises.

21. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no merit in this petition.

And accordingly, the same stands dismissed, however, with a cost of Rs.

10,000/-, (Rupees ten thousand) only, as it appears that the petitioner

has not approached this court with clean hand and the present petition is

a glaring instance of misuse of the process of the court. Further, the

petitioners are directed to vacate the quarter as per the notice dated

04.09.2019 (Annexure-3 of the affidavit-in-opposition) by paying the

monthly rent, as quantified and indicated in the said Annexure-3.

22. The costs shall be deposited with the Secretary, Gauhati High

Court Legal Services Authority, Kohima Bench, within a period of four

weeks.

Comparing Assistant

Sd/- Robin Phukan

JUDGE