JOHN KHRIESANEIHU AND 5 ORS v. THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS
Court: Gauhati High Court
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
Judgment date:
Case summary
Gauhati High Court judgment dated 2024-04-09. JOHN KHRIESANEIHU AND 5 ORS v. THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Page No. # 1/6 GAHC020001632024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I. A. (Civil)/47/2024 JOHN KHRIESANEIHU AND 5 ORS S/O S. D. RUPREO R/O NEW MINISTERS HILLS KOHIMA TOWN, NAGALAND 797001 2: S. D RUPREO AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS HUSBAND OF LATE KEREIU RUPREO R/O NEW MINISTERS HILL KOHIMA TOWN NAGALAND - 797001 3: VIZOVONUO RUPREO AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS D/O S. D RUPREO R/O NEW MINISTERS HILL KOHIMA TOWN NAGALAND - 797001 4: KEDUOVITUO RUPREO AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O S. D RUPREO R/O NEW MINISTERS HILL KOHIMA TOWN NAGALAND - 797001 5: MHASILENUO RUPREO AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS W/O KETHOYAPIE PHIZO R/O MISSION COMPOUND NEAR URA ACADEMY Page No. # 2/6 KOHIMA TOWN NAGALAND - 797001 6: NEILAKUOLIE AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O S. D RUPREO R/O NEW MINISTERS HILL KOHIMA TOWN NAGALAND - 79700 VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND, KOHIMA.
2:THE COMMISSIONER GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOHIMA DISTRICT GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND 4:KIPFELIE TERHASE RESIDING NEAR ASSEMBLY OF GOD SCHOOL HOSPITAL COLONY KOHIMA TOWN KOHIMA DISTRICT NAGALAN Advocate for the Petitioner : R. IRALU, SR. ADV Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL Linked Case : WP(C)/86/2018 JOHN KHRIESANEIHU AND 5 ORS KOHIMA Page No. # 3/6 2: S. D. RUPREO KOHIMA 3: VIZOVONUO RUPREO NEW MINISTERS HILL KOHIMA 4: KEDUOVITUO RUPREO NEW MINISTERS HILL KOHIMA 5: MHASILENUO RUPREO MISSION COMPOUND URA ACADEMY 6: NEILAKUOLIE NEW MINISTERS HILL KOHIMA VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS. KOHIMA 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 Advocate for : GOVT ADV NL appearing for THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS. Page No. # 4/6 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 09. 04.
2024 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 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. 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: “(of Mr. Kaikho Mao, the father of the present petitioners)” 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. In the paragraph 15 of the said Judgment and Order (CAV) dated 08. 04.
2022, the following sentence was written: “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” 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”. 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. 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. 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. Perusal of the record clarifies that the errors are primarily typographical error.
The learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that such typographical error may be corrected. 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”. And first part of paragraph 15 be read as “In the case in hand, admittedly the notice was issued to Shri Chaimainkho Page No. # 6/6 Mao and the father of the petitioners was not the patta holder”. With the aforesaid, the I. A. stands allowed. This order should be read along with the Judgment and Order (CAV) dated 08. 04.
2022 in WP(C)/86/2018. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Source: Gauhati High Court. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.