Page No.# 1/ vs The State Of Nagaland And 5 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 8245 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/ vs The State Of Nagaland And 5 Ors on 1 November, 2025

                                                               Page No.# 1/11
                                                                      2024:GAU-AS:4411
GAHC010067342023




                                                          2024:GAU-AS:4409

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

                        Case No. : Tr.P.(C)./32/2023

         SHAH NEWAZ KHAN AND 5 ORS.
         S/O- LATE ABDUL ROUF KHAN, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF BOKAJAN, P.S.
         BOKAJAN, DIST. KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM, HAVING RESIDENCE IN
         PURANA BAZAAR, DIMAPUR, DIST. DIMAPUR, NAGALAND.

         2: SHAH NAQIB KHAN
          S/O- LATE ABDUL ROUF KHAN
          PERMANENT RESIDENT OF BOKAJAN
          P.S. BOKAJAN
          DIST. KARBI ANGLONG
         ASSAM
          HAVING RESIDENCE IN PURANA BAZAAR
          DIMAPUR
          DIST. DIMAPUR
          NAGALAND. REPRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER NO. 1
          ON THE STRENGTH OF POWER OF ATTORNEY

         3: SHAH IMRAN KHAN
          S/O- LATE ABDUL ROUF KHAN
          PERMANENT RESIDENT OF BOKAJAN
          P.S. BOKAJAN
          DIST. KARBI ANGLONG
         ASSAM
          HAVING RESIDENCE IN PURANA BAZAAR
          DIMAPUR
          DIST. DIMAPUR
          NAGALAND. REPRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER NO. 1
          ON THE STRENGTH OF POWER OF ATTORNEY

         4: MD. ZAKIR KHAN
          S/O LT. MD. HASSAN KHAN
          PERMANENT RESIDENT OF BOKAJAN
          P.S. BOKAJAN
          DIST. KARBI ANGLONG
                                                  Page No.# 2/11
                                                        2024:GAU-AS:4411
ASSAM
HAVING RESIDENCE IN PURANA BAZAAR
DIMAPUR
DIST. DIMAPUR
NAGALAND. REPRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER NO. 1
ON THE STRENGTH OF POWER OF ATTORNEY

5: SADDAD KHAN
 S/O LT. MD. HASSAN KHAN
 PERMANENT RESIDENT OF BOKAJAN
 P.S. BOKAJAN
 DIST. KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM
 HAVING RESIDENCE IN PURANA BAZAAR
 DIMAPUR
 DIST. DIMAPUR
 NAGALAND. REPRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER NO. 1
 ON THE STRENGTH OF POWER OF ATTORNEY

6: SUILTAN MEHMOOD KHAN
 S/O LT. MD. HASSAN KHAN
 PERMANENT RESIDENT OF BOKAJAN
 P.S. BOKAJAN
 DIST. KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM
 HAVING RESIDENCE IN PURANA BAZAAR
 DIMAPUR
 DIST. DIMAPUR
 NAGALAND. REPRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER NO. 1
 ON THE STRENGTH OF POWER OF ATTORNE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND, DEPARTMENT OF POWER, KOHIMA,
NAGALAND

2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND
 DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE
 KOHIMA
 NAGALAND

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
 DIST-DIMAPUR
 NAGALAND

4:THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR
                                                  Page No.# 3/11
                                                        2024:GAU-AS:4411
NATIONAL HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD.
CORPORATE OFFICE - NHPC OFFICE COMPLEX
SECTOR 33
FARIDABAD-121003
HARYANA

5:CHIEF ENGINEER
 LOKTAK HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION
 BISHNEPUR
 MANIPUR

6:ON THE DEATH OF MD. MANSUR AHMED
 S/O LATE SALIM AHMED
WHO HAS DIED ALSO

6.1:NAWAZ AHMED
 R/O VILL- KHANI BASTI
 P.S.- KHAT-KHATI
 P.O.-KARAGAON
 KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM

6.2:YASIN AHMED
 R/O VILL- KHANI BASTI
 P.S.- KHAT-KHATI
 P.O.-KARAGAON
 KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM

Linked Case : Tr.P.(C)./68/2015

SHAH NEWAZ KHAN and 5 ORS
S/O LT. ABDUL ROUF KHAN

2: SHAH NAQIB KHAN
S/O LT. ADUL ROUF KHAN

3: SHAH IMRAN KHAN
S/O LT. ABDUL ROUF KHAN

4: MD. ZAHIR KHAN
S/O LT. MD. HASSAN KHAN

5: SADDAD KHAN
S/O LT. MD. HASSAN KHAN

6: SUILTAN MEHMOOD KHAN
                                                      Page No.# 4/11
                                                            2024:GAU-AS:4411
S/O LT. MD. HASSAN KHAN ALL ARE PERMANENT RESIDENT OF BOKAJAN
P.S. BOKAJAN DIST. KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM
HAVING RESIDENCE IN PURANA BAZAAR
DIMAPUR
DIST. DIMAPUR
NAGALAND.
VERSUS

THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 5 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF
NAGALAND
DEPARTMENT
OF POWER
KOHIMA
NAGALAND.

2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND
DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE
 KOHIMA NAGALAND.

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DIST. DIMAPUR
NAGALAND.

4:THE CHAIRMAN
CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR
NATIONAL HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD.
CORPORATE OFFICE- NHPC OFFICE COMPLEX
SECTOR 33
FARIDABAD- 121003
HARYANA.

5:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
LOKTAK HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION
BISHENPUR
MANIPUR.

6:ON THE DEATH OF MD. MANSUR AHMED
HIS SON SALIM AHMED R/O BURMA CAMP
DIMAPUR
NAGALAND.
------------

Page No.# 5/11 2024:GAU-AS:4411 :::BEFORE:::

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG

Advocate for the petitioner/appellant: Mr. S. Dutta, Sr. Adv.

Mr. N. I. Khan Advocates for the respondents : Ms. M. Kechu, Addl. AG, Nagaland Mr. G. Baishya Mr. R. P. Sarmah, Sr. Adv.

                                            Mr. B. N. Sarmah
     Date on which judgment is reserved   : 30.10.2025
     Date of pronouncement of judgment    : 01.11.2025
     Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment?       YES
     Whether the full judgment has been pronounced?          YES


                                    JUDGMENT & ORDER(CAV)

Heard Mr. Surajit Dutta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. N. I. Khan, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Also heard Ms. M. Kechu, learned Addl. Advocate General, Nagaland, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3; Mr. G. Baishya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 & 5; and Mr. R. P. Sarmah, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. B. N. Sarmah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 6a & 6b.

2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 03/2007 pending before the Court of learned District Judge, Dimapur. The dispute in the suit pertains to landed properties situated at Dimapur in the State of Nagaland and cause of action also arises within the State of Nagaland. The petitioners had earlier by filing Transfer petition being Tr.P.(c)68/2015 under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, sought transfer of the said suit from Dimapur, Nagaland, to the State of Assam. The said petition was dismissed by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court on 10.12.2015 on the ground that the two States Page No.# 6/11 2024:GAU-AS:4411 of Assam and Nagaland although under the common High Court of Gauhati; the States being different, the application has to be filed under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

3. Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court being SLPC No. 4149/2016 and Transfer Petition(c) No. 307/2016. By order, dated 28.02.2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order, dated 10.12.2015, passed in Tr.P.(c)68/2015 and directed this Court to proceed to decide the application filed by the petitioners under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, afresh, on its own merit.

4. Pursuant thereto, the Tr.P.(c)68/2015 was revived. The petitioners has also filed the present transfer petition being Tr.P.(c)32/2023 under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which involves the same prayer for transfer of the Civil Suit No. 03/2007, from Dimapur, Nagaland, to Guwahati, Assam.

5. Since both these transfer petitions involves the same prayer, the matters are, thus, taken-up together and disposed of by this common order.

6. The contention of the petitioners is that on 23.12.2006, a threatening news item specifically directing the petitioners' community was published in "Morung Express" in the State of Nagaland and further a clarification was also issued by the Head Gaon Burah in the same newspaper wherein, the petitioners were named.

7. It is submitted that the petitioners and the respondent No. 6 [now Page No.# 7/11 2024:GAU-AS:4411 represented by 6a and 6b] are relatives. It is the case of the petitioners in the suit that the said respondent No. 6 has let-out several family properties to the respondent authorities of the State of Nagaland and has misappropriated the rents received therefrom without giving the petitioners their due share. The respondent No. 6 has also sold vast areas of land and received land acquisition compensation paid by the State of Nagaland and misappropriated the proceeds thereof without giving the petitioners their due share.

8. The further contention of the petitioners is that due to threat and intimidation; the petitioners could not effectively prosecute the said suit being Civil Suit No. 03/2007 pending before the District Court at Dimapur in the State of Nagaland resulting in earlier dismissal. However, the civil suit was restored by the order of this High Court.

9. In support of his contentions for transfer of the civil suit from District Court, Dimapur, Nagaland, to Guwahati, Assam, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:

(i). Gurucharan Das Chadha v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1966 SC 1418[paragraph No. 13]

(ii). Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 2386[paragraph No. 7]; and

(iii). Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh v. Kandi Friends Education Trust & Ors reported in (2008) 3 SCC 659[paragraph No. 23]

10. The learned senior counsel has submitted that in the above-referred cases; the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a party is entitled to transfer Page No.# 8/11 2024:GAU-AS:4411 if he shows circumstances from which it can be inferred that the apprehension is reasonable and to judge the reasonableness of the apprehension; the study of mind of the petitioner is relevant. The learned senior counsel has further submitted that the reasonable apprehension of not getting justice is sufficient for transfer and reasonableness must be assessed from the standpoint of the litigant as held in the above-referred cases.

11. Per contra, the respondents have contended that although the petitioners have submitted that there is an apprehension of threat, neither, FIR, and/or contemporaneous complaint regarding threat was filed before any of the police stations, nor, the same was brought to the notice of the learned trial Court. The respondents have further contended that the suit, in question, was filed in the year 2007 and despite the alleged threat in the year 2006. The further contention is that no plea of intimidation was ever raised by the petitioners in the entire plaint before the learned trial Court.

12. The learned counsels for the respondents have contended that trial of the suit being Civil Suit No. 03/2007 is at the final stage and the proceedings have already been delayed due to prolonged stay orders. The learned counsels have also contended that all witnesses, evidences, and Government records are located within the State of Nagaland and the portion of the disputed land includes the Government land and therefore, the transfer of the said case, will cause serious administrative inconvenience. It is further contended by the learned counsels for the respondents that the allegation of threat made by the petitioners is vague and unsubstantiated.

13. From the pleadings, the point emerges for determination by this Court is "Whether Civil Suit No. 03/2007 should be transferred from the District Court, Page No.# 9/11 2024:GAU-AS:4411 Dimapur, Nagaland, to the Court in Assam on the ground of alleged threat and the apprehension of prejudice."

14. The legal position in this regard is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases that transfer of a suit from one State to another is an exceptional measure. Ordinarily, the suit must be tried where the property is situated.

15. In the instant case, while the petitioners' state of mind is relevant as submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners in assessing apprehension, however, the said apprehension must be real, reasonable and supported by objective circumstances. Mere allegation of threat without producing any material or conduct reflecting clear risk, in my considered opinion, are insufficient to dislodge the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.

16. In the case at hand, as pointed-out by the learned counsels for the respondents, the alleged threat was made in the year 2006 while the suit, in question, was filed in the year 2007 i.e. after the alleged threat was already received and the cases proceeded for around 8 years without objection on this ground.

17. Furthermore, it appears that neither, any police complaint, nor, any protective application was filed in the Court at Dimapur, or, any other Court during the trial. The suit appears to have reached the stage of recording of evidence and record shows that substantial delay has already occurred.

18. Besides, the disputed land being situated in the State of Nagaland, all Page No.# 10/11 2024:GAU-AS:4411 witnesses and records are in Nagaland, additionally, the portion of the disputed land is claimed to belonged to the Government of Nagaland. Under the circumstances, transfer of the suit, in question, which is at the final stage, would cause prejudice to the respondents.

19. However, the petitioners' apprehension of threat, cannot be dismissed outrightly considering the historical context of the region and the past allegations placed on record.

20. Therefore, the balance of justice ensuring fair trial is called for but without disrupting the territorial jurisdiction.

21. Accordingly, the prayer for transfer of the suit being Civil Suit No. 03/2007 from the Court of District Judge at Dimapur, Nagaland, to Guwahati, or, any other District in the State of Assam, is hereby rejected.

22. The District Judge, Dimapur, Nagaland, shall ensure that trial of the suit is conducted in a secured and intimidation free environment.

23. The petitioners are permitted to seek police protection which shall be provided as and when required. If necessary, the Court shall record evidence of the witnesses, either, in camera, or, through video conferencing upon application made by them.

24. The Superintendent of Police, Dimapur, and/or the concerned District shall upon application made by the petitioners, provide adequate security Page No.# 11/11 2024:GAU-AS:4411 arrangements on the dates of hearing of the suit to ensure safety and unhindered participation of the litigants/ witnesses.

25. Considering the fact that the trial of the case has already been delayed; the learned trial Court shall make an endeavour to conclude the proceedings in the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within a year from the date of receipt of this order.

26. Both the transfer petitions being Tr.P.(c)68/2015 and Tr.P.(c)32/2023 stands disposed of in terms of the above directions. No order as to costs.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant