The Gauhati High Court has directed the DC of Dimapur to decide within three months on petitions involving alleged irregularities in PWD colony land allotments.
Share
DIMAPUR — In a significant judgement involving alleged irregularities in land allotments within PWD colony in Dimapur, the Kohima Bench of Gauhati High Court has directed the deputy commissioner of Dimapur to issue final decisions within three months in three separate but interconnected writ petitions filed by three citizens: Bendangmeren, Sakuchiba Ao (a.k.a. Saku Ao), and Moatemsu A Jamir.
All the three cases—WP(C)/113/2020, WP(C)/114/2020, and WP(C)/2/2021—challenge the order dated December 19, 2019, passed by the Upa Lokayukta of Nagaland in RC Case No. 2/2013, as well as the subsequent show cause notices issued on July 15, 2020, by the deputy commissioner.
Case background
Per court records, the Upa Lokayukta’s 2019 order was prompted by investigations conducted into two systemic issues: rampant condemnation and dismantling of PWD quarters in Dimapur; and irregular issuance, extension, and mutation of patta (land ownership documents) in PWD colony.
The report alleged that several condemned PWD buildings were dismantled without due process, and the land was subsequently allotted to individuals—many of whom were reportedly government officials or their relatives—in violation of multiple government notifications, some dating as far back as 1992.
Consequently, the order called for cancellation of illegal pattas; revaluation of dismantled buildings; accountability for misuse of government authority; and digitisation and reform of the land allotment system.
All three petitioners—Bendangmeren, Sakuchiba Ao, and Moatemsu A Jamir—were represented by Advocate Bendangwabang, who argued that the Lokayukta had reopened a matter already decided by the Vigilance Commission. That earlier case concluded with one acquittal and one death, and the judgment dated January 30, 2019, had not been appealed, making it final.
Citing the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, 2017, particularly Section 9 (3), the petitioners argued that the Lokayukta was barred from reopening old cases (beyond 5 years for allegations, or 12 months for grievances) without clear justification. They further claimed the Lokayukta had not followed procedural safeguards under Sections 11 and 14 of the Act, rendering the findings flawed.
All three petitioners had received individual show cause notices in July 2020 and had filed their respective replies in August 2020, which were still pending final adjudication by the deputy commissioner.
Lokayukta defence
In defence of the Lokayukta’s action, Advocate TB Jamir argued that the investigation and resulting recommendations were well within the authority of the Lokayukta under Section 8 (suo moto powers) and Sections 25 (3) and 25 (4) of the Act, which permit competent authorities to act upon Lokayukta findings without additional enquiry.
He also submitted that although the deputy commissioner had the authority to act immediately, a show cause process was initiated to ensure due process.
In the case of Sakuchiba Ao, it was specifically noted that the land in his possession may not technically fall within the official boundaries of the PWD colony, adding a layer of complexity to his claim.
Court verdict
While delivering her judgement, Justice Shamima Jahan acknowledged that all petitioners were directly affected by the Lokayukta’s report and had responded to the show cause notices. However, no final orders had yet been passed by the deputy commissioner, she noted.
Accordingly, the judge issued uniform directions in all three writ petitions: the deputy commissioner of Dimapur must consider each petitioner’s reply and issue a final decision within three months from the date of receipt of the court’s order; status quo must be maintained by all parties until the final decisions are issued; and all previously existing interim orders stand vacated.