DAVID KINGHEN Vs. STATE OF NAGAKLAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present one is a case, which demonstrates utter lack of sensitivity of the State in dealing with the family of one of its citizens. The State, in the present case, as would transpire shortly, kept, with the help of its sheer might and not on the strength of any law, not only the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest, but also the petitioner deprived from the enjoyment of their landed property for a number of years. If allowed to go unchecked, cases, such as the present one, would breed frustration. If the Court, in a case, as serious as the present one, does not step in promptly and give, within the ambit of law, adequate reliefs to the person(s) concerned, the annoyance, frustration and helplessness of persons, such as, the present petitioner, would give rise to fissiparous tendencies in the society, make people lose trust and confidence in the system of governance itself. Casualty of such circumstances would be peace in the society. Such a situation would not auger well for the administration of justice inasmuch as frustrated minds would not only lose faith in the efficacy of the administration of justice and in the meaningful existence of the rule of law, but such frustrated and deprived persons would, eventually, become a threat to the orderly existence of the society itself.

(2.) Put in a narrow compass, the facts, which are not in dispute, emerge thus: The petitioner's father had a plot of land, at Kohima, and he constructed a house thereon. This plot of land along with the house standing thereon came to be occupied, in the year 1945, by the police personnel at Kohima. After relentless struggle by the father of the petitioner for a good many years, the Government fixed, on 06.12.1973, rent, with effect from 01.01.1946, @ Rs. 53.34 per month in respect of the said house. This fixation of rent yielded no meaningful result for the petitioner's father and no payment of rent was made. Eventually, the Superintendent of Police, Kohima, requested, vide his letter, dated 18.12.1972, the Inspector General of Police, Nagaland, to move the State Government to accord formal sanction for payment of house rent to the petitioner's father. Notwithstanding such passionate pleas, the petitioner's father died, in the year 1978, without receiving any rent. The State Government, however, mercifully, made payment of some rent, in the year 1979, to the petitioner's mother. Thereafter, despite repeated representations made by the petitioner and his mother, no payment of rent was made to them. The petitioner's mother died expecting to receive the rent lawfully due to them. After Ms mother's death too, the petitioner's struggle to obtain rent continued. This struggle, however, bore no fruits. On the other hand, in the year 2003, the respondents, without even seeking, far less obtaining, consent of the pe'titioner, dismantled the said house and constructed, on the said plot of land, residential quarters for accommodating police personnel. On 17.10. 2003, the petitioner made a representation for payment of land rent, cost of his dismantled house and compensation for the land, which the respondents had been occupying and using. This representation did not move anyone. The petitioner, therefore, approached the Chief Minister of the State, who, in turn, asked, vide his letter, dated 10.01.2005, the Director General of Police, Nagaland, to attend to the matter without delay. Following this direction, a spot verification report was prepared, on 01.03.2005, but, thereafter, no action was taken by the respondents. Feeling helpless and aggrieved by total apathy exhibited to the humane cause of the petitioner, the petitioner, with the help of the present writ petition made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, came to this Court seeking appropriate reliefs.

(3.) In course of time, the Court, in the present writ petition, passed, on 22.09.2005, an order directing the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima, to complete the process of verification and enquiry with regard to the claim of ownership of the land made by the petitioner and submit the result of such verification and enquiry to the Court within a period of four months. The Deputy Commissioner, Kohima, has accordingly submitted his report, dated 15.02.2006. This report shows that the petitioner is the owner of the land, which the Department of Police, at Kohima, has been occupying and utilizing by constructing residential quarters thereon for use of the police personnel. It is in such circumstances that the present writ petition has been taken up for hearing.