Court cites unregistered sale deed executed when purchaser was a minor, unauthorised allotment of government land
Morung Express News
Dimapur | October 11
The Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench (GHCKB) has dismissed appeals challenging the cancellation of land pattas over a disputed plot at New Ministers’ Hill, Kohima, holding that the unregistered sale deed executed when the purchaser was a minor conferred no rights.
The court also held that the allotment of government land was void for want of the requisite government approval.
In its October 9 judgment, a Division Bench of Justice N Unni Krishnan Nair and Justice Nchumbemo Mozhui declined to interfere with an earlier judgment dismissing two writ petitions challenging the eviction proceedings and cancellation of the pattas.
The dispute concerned a plot measuring 336 feet by 44 feet, which one of the appellants claimed to have purchased in 2010. A portion of the land was subsequently gifted to the second appellant in 2016, who obtained a separate patta.
The appellants challenged the authorities’ actions after eviction proceedings were initiated under the Nagaland Eviction of Persons in Unauthorized Occupation of Public Land Act, 1971, and the pattas were cancelled in March 2024.
The appellants had relied on Rule 26 of the Settlement Rules, contending that cancellation of a patta required an opportunity of hearing for the pattadar and could be carried out only by the government department concerned.
The State, however, contended that the land formed part of government-acquired land and that the original purchaser was a minor when the sale deed was executed. It also maintained that the pattas had been erroneously issued.
Sale deed and allotment void
The court observed that the sale deed dated September 28, 2010, was unregistered and had been executed when the purchaser was a minor. As the deed formed the foundation of the appellants’ claims, the Bench held that no rights flowed from it.
It further noted that the patta issued in 2014 reflected an allotment by the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima, rather than a mutation following a transfer of land through sale.
“It is not a Patta issued through the process of mutation, pursuant to transfer of land by way of sale. In so far as the allotment of Government land is concerned, there is a standing policy of not allowing such allotments without the express approval of the Government,” the court held.
The Bench held that the allotment could not stand in the absence of the requisite government approval. It consequently treated the sale deed and the allotment as void ab initio (void from the outset).
The court also rejected the appellants’ reliance on Rule 26 of the Settlement Rules, observing that the provision could not be invoked to sustain actions that were void from the beginning.
Accordingly, the Bench dismissed the appeals and declined to interfere with the earlier judgment dated December 12, 2025.
