Sakuchiba @ Saku Ao Vs the State of Nagaland and 3 Ors.

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari to set aside the impugned order dated 19.12.2019 passed by the Upa Lokayukta, Nagaland, Kohima in R.C Case No. 2/2013 registered under Section 409/420/120 B IPC. The petitioner had also challenged the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 15.07.2020 issued by the

¶22

Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, Nagaland in pursuance to the impugned order dated 19.12.2019.

¶23

It is the case of the petitioner that the Upa Lokayukta vide order dated 19.12.2019 had issued certain directions as well as recommendations in respect of two (2) enquiries conducted by him. The order dated 19.12.2019 makes it clear that the same were passed in respect of two (2) issues i.e., (1) In respect of rampant condemnation and dismantling of PWD quarters at Dimapur and (2) Irregular issue of Patta, regularization of land, extension

¶24

Page No.# 3/9

¶25

and mutation of patta in PWD Colony, Dimapur. In respect of the first part,

¶26

the Lokayukta after enquiries as well as upon consideration of various orders have issued directions as mentioned herein below:-

¶27

“ Verify the buildings yet to be dismantled by the allotees out of the 42 write off buildings mentioned above and cancel the dismantle order issued by the then SDO (H)III and EE(H) Dimapur.

¶28

Re-work out the Depreciated Value of the buildings already dismantled and ensure deposit of the amount through challan to the Govt.

¶29

Write to the Deputy Commissioner Dimapur to cancel patta or allotment order issued against the emptied plots/land of the dismantled PWD building.

¶30

Verify and identify the allottees of the condemned building and those serving PWD Officers/employees and serving Govt. servants of other Department who has connived to get the allotment order of the dismantled building and land in their name or their kids and kin be punished as per the Rules of the Govt.

¶31

Verify the remaining standing PWD quarters at PWD colony Dimapur by a team of senior officials from Works & Housing Department (Housing Branch) along with the Deputy Commissioner Dimapur or his representative, RO DC Office

¶32

Page No.# 4/9

¶33

Dimapur and LRSO Dimapur to determine the number of standing PWD building at PWD colony Dimapur, encroachments, illegal occupation etc and to find ways to stop unauthorized dismantling of PWD quarters and allotment of the emptied land in future.”

¶34

[2.] In respect of part – 2, recommendations were made by the Lokayukta as follows:-

¶35

“ DC Dimapur is to take action on the cancellation of patta as mentioned in page 8, 9, 10 of this order and conduct thorough verification on the cases pointed out in page 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17 of this order and streamlined the system and submit report to this court with 90 days.

¶36

It is recommended that:

¶37

the Department of Land Revenue constitute a committee which should include the DC/RO/EAC(R)/LRSO Dimapur and to be headed by a senior officer of the Department to carry out the recommendation given above and to completely streamline the land allotment system.

¶38

The competent authority of the Govt. i.e the Land Revenue Department should digitize the system of land allotment and come out with a process where the pattas issued by any officer in the District administration without the approval of the Land Revenue Department is not accepted by any authority including the banks.

¶39

The action taken report by the Department of Land, Revenue and Works &Housing shall be submitted to the Nagaland Lokayukta.”

¶40

Page No.# 5/9

¶41

[3.] It is apparent that the directions given in respect of Part-1 is that the Deputy Commissioner was directed to cancel patta or allotment order issued against the empty plots or dismantled PWD building as well as to verify and identify the allottees of the condemned building and serving officers who had connived and got the allotment order and that they are to be punished as per the rules of the Government. In the Part-2, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur was recommended to take action on the cancellation of patta and after verification to streamline the system and submit report.

¶42

[4.] Mr. Bendangwabang, learned counsel for the petitioner states that R.C Case No. 2/2013 was initiated against two (2) officials and the trial was conducted under Section 409 IPC read with Section 13(1)(c) & (2) of the P.C Act, 1988 and on conclusion of the trial, one (1) accused person was acquitted and the other had expired during the trial. The judgment was delivered on 30.01.2019 and that there was no appeal or revision against the said judgment and as such, he submits that the said judgment has attained finality. However, the Lokayukta had reopened the said judgment passed by the Special Judge, Vigilance Commission and passed the impugned order dated 19.12.2019, which according to the learned counsel is not permitted under the law. He had placed Section 9 of the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, 2017 (here-in-after referred to as the “Act”) and by placing Sub-Section 3 of

¶43

Page No.# 6/9

¶44

Section 9 of the Act, he argued that the Lokayukta cannot investigate any complaint involving a grievance after expiry of 12 months as well as any complaint involving allegations after expiry of five (5) years. However, he also stated that in the proviso, limitation period can also be extended if sufficient cause is found. He also placed Section 11 of the said Act wherein, it is provided that the Lokayukta on its own motion may make a preliminary enquiry as it deems fit and if on such preliminary enquiry finds that some grounds exist can record the finding to that effect.

¶45

[5.] The learned counsel also placed Section 14 of the Act in order to establish the law that the Lokayukta has to follow certain procedures which were not followed in the instant case while passing the order dated 19.12.2019. He had also placed one (1) judgment of this Court dated 30.05.2024 wherein, the said order dated 19.12.2019 was declared to be unsustainable in law, which was however in respect of Part-1 of the order dated 19.12.2019.

¶46

[6.] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is affected by both the parts of the order dated 19.12.2019 as his name appears in both Part –1 and Part - 2 of the said order. He also submits that in the Judgment and order dated 30.05.2024, his cause was also involved in the said order.

¶47

Page No.# 7/9

¶48

[7.] On the other hand, Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4, the Lokayukta submits that the case of the petitioner is included in Part-2 of the order dated 19.12.2019 and in the said Part-2, it is apparent that the Lokayukta had conducted an enquiry and had given a recommendation in reply to the said issue in question. The recommendation was annexed at page No. 60 wherein, after inquiry and considering the relevant notifications, recommendation were issued to the Deputy Commissioner to take action on the cancellation of Patta after conducting thorough verification. In view of the said recommendation, the Deputy Commissioner had issued a show cause notice on 15.07.2020 to the petitioner as well as others to appear in his office with all relevant documents in support of their claims. In pursuance to that show cause notice, the petitioner had filed a show cause reply on 14.08.2020. He further stated that the said reply is pending consideration before the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, Nagaland. The learned counsel relied upon Section 25(3) of the Act wherein, it is provided that if the Lokayukta upon an investigation into an allegation, is satisfied that the allegation is substantiated wholly or partly, he can file a report and that the investigation comes to an end on filing of such report. He also placed Sub-Section 4 of Section 25 of the Act wherein, it is stated that the competent authority shall examine the report and he without any further enquiry can take necessary

¶49

Page No.# 8/9

¶50

action on the basis of the recommendation. However, he stated that in the instant case, although the competent authority can initiate action without any enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner, after receiving the recommendation had issued the show cause notice to the petitioner before taking any action. He also states that the limitation period as prescribed under Section 9 of the Act will not be applicable in the instant case since the Lokayukta has powers provided under Section 8 of the said Act to enquire suo moto.

¶51

[8.] It is noticed that in the early part of 1992, various orders, notifications were issued by the Govt. of Nagaland banning allotment of Government lands to private individuals without prior approval of the Government. However, it was unearthed that inspite of the aforesaid, various rampant condemnation and dismantling of PWD quarters were done and lands were allotted. As such, a case was registered being numbered as R.C Case No. 2/2013 before the Vigilance Commission. The said Vigilance Commission conducted the trial and acquitted the person as mentioned above. On the other hand, the Nagaland Lokayukta after thorough investigation found out that Patta has been issued to several persons in respect of land belonging to PWD and they were found in total violation of the notifications, orders passed by the Govt. of Nagaland and after the said enquiry, the Lokayukta passed the impugned order dated 19.12.2019, by which the land possessed

¶52

Page No.# 9/9

¶53

by the petitioner does not fall in PWD Colony.

¶54

[9.] It is further noticed that in pursuance to the recommendation given by the Lokayukta, the Deputy Commissioner issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, to which the petitioner filed a reply. As such, this Court deems it necessary that the Deputy Commissioner may consider the reply and pass the final order within a reasonable period, which may not extend beyond three (3) months from the date of receipt of the instant order. Mr. V. Zhimomi, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 may furnish this Order to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, Nagaland for compliance of the same. A copy of this order be furnished to the counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Till the disposal of the show cause issued by the Deputy Commissioner, status quo be maintained by all the parties, for the ends of justice.

¶55

[10] Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

¶56

JUDGE

¶57

Comparing Assistant

Sakuchiba @ Saku Ao v. the State of Nagaland and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sakuchiba @ Saku Ao v. the State of Nagaland and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bengia Bapu and 26 Ors. Vs Chera Tachung and 5 Ors.

Bengia Bapu and 26 Ors. Vs Lokam Nungna and 5 Ors.

Smti Rehena Begum Vs The State of Ap

Moatemsu. a. Jamir Vs the State of Nagaland and 3 Ors.

Bendangmeren Vs the State of Nagaland and 3 Ors.

Shri Katovi Zhimomi Vs State of Nagaland