Disposed

Smti Imtinaro v. State of Nagaland and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Jun 2026WP(C)/99/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking appointment on landowner basis against a Grade-IV vacancy in PWD (R&B), Changtongya Division, based on land donated by the petitioner's father under an oral assurance. Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, Mokokchung to examine the claim under the 05.03.2018 Notification.

What did the court decide?

Directions to Deputy Commissioner, Mokokchung to decide the petitioner's landowner appointment claim within 30 days with a speaking order if adverse; respondents to consider appointment within 3 month

Smti Imtinaro Vs State of Nagaland and 5 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/8

2026:GAU-NL:325

GAHC020003162025

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/99/2025

¶6

SMTI IMTINARO

¶7

DAUGHTER OF LATE SHRI PURNUKLU, R/O CHURCH WARD, CHANGTONGYA TOWN, MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

STATE OF NAGALAND AND 5 ORS THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, NAGALAND KOHIMA

¶10

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY WORKS AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT NAGALAND KOHIMA

¶11

3:THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF NPWD NAGALAND KOHIMA

¶12

4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER

¶13

PWD (R AND B) NAGALAND KOHIMA

¶14

5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶15

PWD (R AND B) CHANGTONGYA DIVISION MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND

¶16

6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAN

¶17

Page No.# 2/8

¶18

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶19

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sentiyanger, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A. Jungli, Govt. Advocate

¶20

Date on which judgment was reserved : NA

¶21

Date of pronouncement of judgment : 02.06.2026

¶22

Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment? : NA Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes

¶23

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

¶24

Heard Mr. Sentiyanger, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. A. Jungli, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6.

¶25

The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner being aggrieved by the non-consideration of the Respondents to the Petitioner’s claim for appointment on landowner basis against the vacancy caused by the retirement of Smt. Watisangla, who was serving as a Chowkidar in the PWD (R&B), Changtongya Division, Mokokchung.

¶26

It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner’s father, Shri Purnuklu, along with others, donated the plot of land on which

¶27

Page No.# 3/8

¶28

the Changtongya Office and the Central Store of the PWD (R&B) Sub-Division, Changtongya, were established. According to the Petitioner, the land was jointly and severely donated to the department upon a verbal assurance given by the department that appointments to Grade-IV posts shall be given to the landowners as and when vacancies arose. This aspect is also verified by the Changtongya Village Council in the Certificate issued by the Chairman, Changtongya Village Council which is enclosed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition.

¶29

In the Changtongya Office Complex and Central Store, a vacancy arose of a Grade-IV post which was caused due to the retirement of Smt. Watisangla, who was a Chowkidar. The Changtongya Village Council recommended the name of the Petitioner for claiming appointment to the said post on land ownership basis. The Petitioner also submitted an application against the aforesaid vacancy on land ownership basis, being the daughter of the original landowner/donor. It is the further case of the Petitioner that in the meantime, verification was conducted. However, in spite of that, as the Petitioner's case was not considered, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶30

The record reveals that this Court vide order dated

¶31

Page No.# 4/8

¶32

12.06.2025 issued notice. However, no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the Respondents till date.

¶33

However, when the matter was taken up, Mr. A. Jungli, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the State Respondents and submitted that a verification was conducted and post conducting the verification, the Head D.B. of the Office of the Customary Court, Changtongya, Nagaland, submitted a report on 05.07.2025 to the effect that a joint verification was conducted at PWD(R&B) Division, Changtongya attended by the Council Members, landowners and department officials to verify the land ownership status of the Petitioner. The verification confirmed that the Petitioner was indeed a genuine land owner of the division. It was also confirmed that neither the Petitioner nor any of her family members availed or received any undue benefits or privileges by virtue of becoming a landowner. In that regard, the learned Government Advocate placed before this Court the said verification report of the Head D.B., Office of the Customary Court, Changtongya, Nagaland dated 05.07.2025, which is kept on record and marked with the letter “X”.

¶34

The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents further submitted that based upon the said report dated 05.07.2025, which has been kept on record and

¶35

Page No.# 5/8

¶36

marked with the letter “X”, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Tuli, Nagaland further submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner, Mokokchung thereby forwarding the verification report of the DB and Village Council, Changtongya on 24.07.2025 which is also kept on record and marked with the letter “Y”.

¶37

From the above, it is seen that a verification exercise was conducted at the departmental level, pursuant to which reports were submitted indicating that the Petitioner belongs to the family of the landowners who had donated the land and had not received any benefits thereafter.

¶38

This Court now finds it relevant to take note of the Notification dated 05.03.2018 issued by the Government of Nagaland, Land Revenue Department, wherein it is categorically mentioned as to what steps are required to be taken on the basis of claims for appointment on landowner basis based upon oral agreement. Clauses 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) of the said Notification, being relevant, are reproduced herein under:

¶39

“3(a) In other cases prior to 26.07.2005 and subsequent to setting up of Administrative and Block headquarters on freely donated land, where a specific written agreement exists providing for employment to the landowner, the claim of landowner for employment should be settled in terms of such agreement.

¶40

3(b) If there is any claim for providing employment as a result of oral

¶41

Page No.# 6/8

¶42

agreement, the Department concerned shall refer the matter to the Deputy Commissioner of the District concerned who shall examine such claim carefully including whether any employment or any other facility including contract or supply order has been given in the past. Written statements from the witnesses, that is, Government officials of the concerned department and the District Administration and village functionaries present at the time of such oral agreement should be taken by the Deputy Commissioner. The recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner should be referred with relevant documents to the Department of Land Revenue for advice in such cases by the Department concerned.

¶43

3(c) It is also clarified that it is not the policy of the Government to provide employment to the landowner in perpetuity. The employment of landowner, if permitted by a verifiable and valid agreement, is limited to the person first appointed as landowner in Government service and does not entitle his descendents for further employment on his retirement from service. After the appointed landowner retires or vacates the post, the vacancy will be filled up through open advertisement in consonance with the existing policy giving equal opportunity to all applicants.”

¶44

From a perusal of the said Notification dated 05.03.2018, it is clear that the authority concerned for making the final recommendation on the basis of land ownership in a case coming within the ambit of an oral agreement is the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District. It is seen that as far back as on 24.07.2025, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Tuli had already submitted the verification report. However, the duty cast upon the Respondent No. 6 under the Notification dated

¶45

Page No.# 7/8

¶46

05.03.2018 has not yet been carried out. It is also the opinion of this Court that without carrying out the said exercise by the Respondent No. 6, the Petitioner cannot be considered to be appointed on land ownership basis.

¶47

Considering the above, this Court, therefore, disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions:

¶48

(i) The Respondent No. 6 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Mokokchung is directed to consider as to whether the Petitioner is entitled to her claim for appointment on land ownership basis taking into account the report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Tuli as well as the verification carried out by the Office of the Customary Court, Changtongya, Nagaland.

¶49

(ii) The said exercise be completed within 30 days from the date a certified copy of the present judgment is served upon the Respondent No. 6 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Mokokchung .

¶50

(iii) It is further observed that based upon the favourable recommendation so made by the

¶51

Page No.# 8/8

¶52

Respondent No. 6, the other Respondents in the present proceedings shall consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment on land ownership basis in terms with the Notification dated 05.03.2018 or any subsequent Notification/Office Memorandum issued in that regard by the State of Nagaland.

¶53

(iv) The said exercise be completed by the other Respondents preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the recommendation from the Respondent No. 6, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner, Mokokchung.

¶54

(v) This Court further directs that in the circumstance, the Respondent No. 6 is not inclined to make recommendation in favour of the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 6 shall pass a Speaking Order within the period of 30 days from the date a certified copy of the instant judgment is served upon the Respondent No. 6 and provide the Petitioner the said Speaking Order.

¶55

JUDGE

¶56

Comparing Assistant

Smti Imtinaro v. State of Nagaland and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti Imtinaro v. State of Nagaland and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lireni Kikon Vs Apong Pongener Ao and 3 Ors.

Smti. Lireni Kikon Vs Shri Apong Pongener Ao and 3 Ors.

Shri T. Nzanthung Vs Smti. Lezano Kikon @ Lizano Kikon

Miss Hokani Chophy Vs State of Nagaland and 5 Ors.

Smti. Lolano John Ngullie Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Moalong Sangtam Vs the State of Nagaland and 4 Ors.