Gauhati High Court quashes Pfutsero eviction order, finding statutory procedure was not followed before action under Nagaland’s 1971 Act
DIMAPUR — A bid to evict a man from disputed government land in Pfutsero has run into procedural roadblock, after the Kohima Bench of Gauhati High Court quashed the eviction order for being issued without first following the mandatory procedure under the Nagaland Eviction of Persons in Unauthorised Occupation of Public Land Act, 1971.
Justice Devashis Baruah, in a judgement delivered on September 21, set aside the March 20, 2026, order issued by the additional deputy commissioner of Pfutsero against petitioner Mikha Wetsa under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act.
The court, however, did not rule on who owns the disputed land where the office of the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon at Pfutsero is located.
Allegations that the land had been fraudulently transferred to the state could not be decided in a writ proceeding, as such claims would require evidence to be examined before a competent forum, it stated.
Also read: Nagaland: High Court suspends Chedema Village Council resolution pending hearing on land dispute
According to the judgement, the disputed property covers approximately 29.3 acres and involves six landowners. The petitioner claimed that parts of the land belonged to Wetsa clan and had remained in its possession.
The state, on the other hand, maintained that the land had been acquired through outright purchase and recorded in Patta Book No. 613 in favour of the Department of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry.
Wetsa had challenged several orders relating to the property. These included a March 20, 2024, restraining order preventing him from encroaching on land covered by Patta Book No. 613; a direction for joint spot verification issued on August 4, 2025; and a November 28, 2025, order stating that the disputed land had been acquired by the government.
The court declined to interfere with those three orders. It held that the allegation of fraudulent transfer could not be decided solely on the basis of claims made by the parties. However, it stated, Wetsa was free to challenge the 2024 and 2025 orders before a competent civil court.
The court found a separate legal flaw in the March 20, 2026, eviction order. Under the 1971 Act, proceedings under Section 6 read with Section 7 can be initiated only after a notice is issued under Section 5 and the person concerned is given an opportunity to be heard.
In this case, the court noted, no Section 5 notice had been issued and no proceedings under the Act had been initiated before the eviction order was passed.
The court therefore held that the eviction order was issued “without jurisdiction” because the statutory requirements had not been met.
It accordingly quashed the order but clarified that the state authorities could initiate fresh proceedings under the 1971 Act, provided they followed the prescribed procedure.