Allowed

John Khriesaneihu and 5 Ors. v. the State of Nagaland and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC9 Apr 2024I.A.(Civil)/47/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed an interim application filed to correct typographical errors in a previous judgment and order (CAV) dated 08.04.2022 in a connected writ petition. The court specified the exact terms of correction for two paragraphs.

What did the court decide?

The typed error in paragraph 3(VI) and part of paragraph 15 of the CAV dated 08.04.2022 shall be corrected as per the specified text in paragraphs 52-55.

John Khriesaneihu and 5 Ors. Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC020001632024

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/47/2024

¶5

JOHN KHRIESANEIHU AND 5 ORS S/O S.D. RUPREO R/O NEW MINISTERS HILLS KOHIMA TOWN, NAGALAND 797001 2: S.D RUPREO

¶6

AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS HUSBAND OF LATE KEREIU RUPREO R/O NEW MINISTERS HILL KOHIMA TOWN NAGALAND - 797001

¶7

3: VIZOVONUO RUPREO

¶8

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS D/O S.D RUPREO R/O NEW MINISTERS HILL KOHIMA TOWN NAGALAND - 797001

¶9

4: KEDUOVITUO RUPREO

¶10

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O S.D RUPREO

¶11

R/O NEW MINISTERS HILL KOHIMA TOWN NAGALAND - 797001

¶12

5: MHASILENUO RUPREO

¶13

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS W/O KETHOYAPIE PHIZO R/O MISSION COMPOUND NEAR URA ACADEMY

¶14

Page No.# 2/6

¶15

KOHIMA TOWN NAGALAND - 797001

¶16

6: NEILAKUOLIE AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O S.D RUPREO R/O NEW MINISTERS HILL KOHIMA TOWN NAGALAND - 79700

¶17

VERSUS

¶18

THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND, KOHIMA. 2:THE COMMISSIONER

¶19

GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND KOHIMA

¶20

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOHIMA DISTRICT GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND 4:KIPFELIE TERHASE

¶21

RESIDING NEAR ASSEMBLY OF GOD SCHOOL HOSPITAL COLONY KOHIMA TOWN KOHIMA DISTRICT NAGALAN

¶22

Advocate for the Petitioner : R. IRALU, SR. ADV

¶23

Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL

¶24

Linked Case : WP(C)/86/2018

¶25

JOHN KHRIESANEIHU AND 5 ORS NEW MINISTERS HILL KOHIMA

¶26

Page No.# 3/6

¶27

2: S.D. RUPREO NEW MINISTERS HILL KOHIMA

¶28

3: VIZOVONUO RUPREO NEW MINISTERS HILL KOHIMA

¶29

4: KEDUOVITUO RUPREO NEW MINISTERS HILL KOHIMA

¶30

5: MHASILENUO RUPREO MISSION COMPOUND URA ACADEMY

¶31

6: NEILAKUOLIE NEW MINISTERS HILL KOHIMA VERSUS

¶32

THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS. KOHIMA

¶33

2:THE COMMISSIONER N/L KOHIMA N/L 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOHIMA KOHIMA N/L 4:KIPFELIE TERHASE RESIDENT NEAR ASSEMBLY OF GOD SCHOOL HOSPITAL COLONY KOHIMA N/L -----------Advocate for : R. IRALU SR. ADV

¶34

Advocate for : GOVT ADV NL appearing for THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS.

¶35

Page No.# 4/6

¶36

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶37

ORDER

¶38

09.04.2024

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶40

The present application is filed for correction of an typographical error at paragraph 3(VI) and 15 of the Judgment and Order (CAV) dated 08.04.2022 in WP(C)/86/2018.

¶41

In the paragraph No. 3(VI) of the said Judgment and Order (CAV) dated 08.04.2022, the following sentence at line 4 was written:

¶42

“(of Mr. Kaikho Mao, the father of the present petitioners)”

¶43

However, the words “the father of the present petitioners has inadvertently been added and the said Mr. Kaikho Mao is not the father of the petitioners.

¶44

In the paragraph 15 of the said Judgment and Order (CAV) dated 08.04.2022, the following sentence was written:

¶45

“In the case in hand, admittedly the notice was issued to the father of the petitioners and the father of the petitioners was not the patta holder”

¶46

However, the sentence ought have been written as “In the case in hand, admittedly the notice was issued to Shri Chaimainkho Mao and the father of the petitioners was not the patta holder”.

¶47

Page No.# 5/6 Perused the materials and also read the judgment and order (CAV) passed by this Court in WP(C)/86/2018 under its order dated 08.04.2022.

¶48

The challenge made to the writ petition was an order dated 22.01.2014 whereby the order of allotment of land in favour of the predecessor in interest of the petitioners was cancelled and further challenge was eviction order.

¶49

This Court under its order dated 08.04.2022 passed in judgment and order (CAV) passed by this Court in WP(C)/86/2018 interfered with such decision.

¶50

Perusal of the record clarifies that the errors are primarily typographical error.

¶51

The learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that such typographical error may be corrected.

¶52

Accordingly, the present application stands allowed and it is provided that the line at paragraph No. 3(VI) be read as “ Thereafter, the Superintendent Engineer, (PWD(H) submitted a report. The map annexed to the said report shows that the quarter No. 58 is bounded in north by quarter No. 59, in south by one private quarter of Mr. Kaikho Mao, in West by another private quarter and East by private quarter. Thereafter the Chief Engineer, PWD(H) by its communication dated 05.06.2009 addressed to the Commissioner & Secretary, W&H Department submitted the report” .

¶53

And first part of paragraph 15 be read as “ In the case in hand, admittedly the notice was issued to Shri Chaimainkho

¶54

Page No.# 6/6

¶55

Mao and the father of the petitioners was not the patta holder ”.

¶56

With the aforesaid, the I.A. stands allowed.

¶57

This order should be read along with the Judgment and Order (CAV) dated 08.04.2022 in WP(C)/86/2018.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

JUDGE

¶60

Comparing Assistant

John Khriesaneihu and 5 Ors. v. the State of Nagaland and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

John Khriesaneihu and 5 Ors. v. the State of Nagaland and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tarachu Fithu Vs the State of Nagaland and 7 Ors.

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Shri. R Ezung and 2 Ors.

Sajeda Begum and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Rimjim Borah and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

MD Jahirul Islam Vs the State of Assam

Himanjal Kalita Vs Minakshi Sundaram