Gauhati High Court partly allows Longkhum landowners’ appeal over 400-acre Alichen land dispute involving 2nd NAP Battalion
DIMAPUR — The Kohima Bench of Gauhati High Court has partly allowed an appeal filed by 28 Longkhum landowners over around 400 acres of land occupied by 2nd Nagaland Armed Police (NAP) Battalion at Alichen in Mokokchung district, while upholding the rejection of their civil suit under the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965.
The bench, in a judgement delivered on August 10, set aside the trial court’s observation that the landowners’ plaint disclosed no cause of action, but held that their civil suit could not proceed because Section 17 of the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act bars a civil court from questioning decisions or orders made under the Act.
The bench, however, remarked that the acquisition proceedings could potentially be challenged through a writ proceeding.
The appeal was filed by 28 Longkhum landowners against a January 2024 order of the District Judge, Mokokchung, which had rejected their Civil Suit No. 1 of 2022 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The landowners had sought declaration of their rights and interests over the disputed land, restoration of possession and compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. They had alleged that the 2nd NAP Battalion had occupied about 400 acres at Alichen without paying compensation for the value of the land.
Also read: Nagaland: High Court suspends Chedema Village Council resolution pending hearing on land dispute
According to the plaint, the land had been traditionally possessed and cultivated by the ancestors of the appellants before armed forces personnel allegedly occupied it in the early 1960s. The police subsequently entered into possession after the armed forces left, despite objections from village leaders, the landowners had claimed.
The dispute resurfaced in 2021 when villagers sought to develop a road through the area. The deputy commissioner of Mokokchung issued a restraint order prohibiting road development near the 2nd NAP Battalion’s Alichen firing range. The landowners also claimed that the deputy commissioner’s office had informed them that acquisition documents relating to the Alichen sector were unavailable.
The state, however, maintained that the land had been acquired. During the proceedings, it pointed to a 1974 notification under Section 9 of the 1965 Act and receipts which, according to the respondents, showed that landowners had received the full value of the land.
The high court found that the plaint and documents indicated that some form of acquisition proceedings had taken place. It held that while the landowners could question whether the acquisition procedure complied with the law, such a challenge could not be raised through the civil suit because of the statutory bar under Section 17.
At the same time, the court disagreed with the trial court’s finding that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action. It observed that the landowners had pleaded hereditary rights over the land and alleged illegal dispossession by the authorities.
The high court accordingly partly allowed the appeal, set aside the finding concerning absence of cause of action, but left intact the rejection of the suit under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.