Old Jalukai Village Council vs Kakiho Village

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 9897 of 2016)

OLD JALUKAI VILLAGE COUNCIL …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

KAKIHO VILLAGE & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2025.05.23 17:18:17 IST Reason: J.B. PARDIWALA, J. :-

For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following

parts:

INDEX

A. FACTUAL MATRIX ............................................................................ 2

B. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES .................................................... 18

i. Submissions on behalf of the appellant ......................................... 18

ii. Submissions on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 .................. 23

iii. Submissions on behalf of the State ................................................ 29

C. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION ...................................................... 32

D. ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 33

i. Whether all the necessary conditions/criteria for the issuance of formal order(s) of recognition as per the O.M.’s dated 22.03.1996 and 01.10.2005 respectively were fulfilled?.................................................. 33 ii. Whether the existence of an “inter-district boundary dispute” was a

valid reason to keep the recognition of the respondent no. 1 village in abeyance?... .............................................................................................. 42

E. CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 60

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 1 of 61

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from the Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of

Gauhati, Kohima Bench in Writ Appeal No. 6(K) of 2015 dated 07.10.2015

(hereinafter, the “impugned decision”), by which the High Court affirmed the

Judgment and Order passed by the Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 65(K)

of 2014 directing the State authorities to take steps for the issuance of formal

order(s) for the recognition of the respondent no. 1 village within a period of three

months. The said period was however, extended by another four months

subsequently.

A. FACTUAL MATRIX

3. Land is one of the priceless assets for the people of Nagaland and forms an

inalienable part of their identity and life.1 The landholding system in Nagaland

differs slightly from the rest of the States and is especially characterized by its

non-cadastral nature. Each district, more or less, is occupied by a predominant

1 A. NSHOGA, TRADITIONAL NAGA VILLAGE SYSTEM AND ITS TRANSFORMATION 87 (Anshah Publishing House 2009)

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 2 of 61 concentration of one major tribe and other sub-tribes with distinct socio-cultural

and linguistic characteristics, and therefore, the different districts of the State are

demarcated primarily on the basis of the inhabitation patterns of a specific tribe

or tribes.2 Land is either owned communally by a clan or village or, by individuals

and a new village is formed only within the community land which is owned by

its inhabitants. The formation of villages and its recognition is also extensively

rooted in customary traditions and practices. It is the case of the appellant that

since the establishment and recognition of a new village on the ancestral land of

another village results in the transfer of ownership of the said land to the newly

created village, the prevailing custom requires the village ancestrally owning

such land to accord their consent by way of a ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the

new village which is sought to be established on their land.

4. The aforesaid custom is said to have been recognized in the O.M. dated

22.03.1996 issued by the State of Nagaland which lays down several criteria for

the recognition of villages. The relevant portions of the same read as follows:

“ Government of Nagaland Home Department (General Administration Branch)

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

2

LANUSASHI LONGKUMER ET. AL., STATUS OF ADIVASIS/INDIGENOUS PEOPLES LAND SERIES – 6: NAGALAND 20 (Aakar Books 2012).

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 3 of 61

Dated, Kohima the 22nd March, 1996

No. GAB-12/13/74 : The existing criteria/conditions for recognition of villages in Nagaland having found inconsistent in the present context of administration, the Cabinet in their sitting on 30-06-1995 decided to modify the existing criteria/conditions. Therefore, superseding the Department’s Memorandum No. GAB-13/17/1983 dated 20- 7-1987, the existing criteria/conditions for the recognition of villages in Nagaland have been modified as follows with immediate effect:-

(i) A new village should have a minimum of 50(fifty) houses with a population of not less than 250 (two hundred and fifty) people.

(ii) A new village should have sufficient land expansion of the village and also for agriculture purposes.

(iii) A new village should be constituted by indigenous inhabitants only.

(iv) A new village constituted by members of more than one village should obtain from the Village Council Chairman a ‘No Objection Certificate’ of the parent village indicating that the boundaries of the new village.

(v) A new village constituted by members of more than one village in a different location but within the ancestral land of the parent village, should obtain from the Village Council Chairman of the parent village a ‘No Objection Certificate’ indicating the boundaries of the new village. In cases where exact boundary demarcations cannot be defined due to scatter of pockets of land, the Village Council Chairman and all the GBs of the parent village should determine the nature of boundaries with the new village on any permanent basis acceptable to both the villages.

(vi) In cases where GBs are appointed and allowed to function as the constitutional head of the village in matters of administration of the village land, the GBs concerned should attest their signatures in the ‘No Objection Certificate’ jointly with the Village Council Chairman.

(vii) The entire area of the newly established village should be surveyed jointly by competent staff of Land Records & Survey and civil administration to clearly demarcate and map the village territory and also record the area in hectares.

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 4 of 61 (viii) A new village on completion of the process of boundary demarcations with the neighbouring villages/parent village and also on completion of survey as required under (vii) given below, should erect pillars at its own expenses in the presence of competent staff as requisitioned under the same point.

(ix) The following certificates/documents are required to accompany the proposal:

(a) Clearance from Forest Department issued by an officer not below the rank of DFO.

(b) Judicial clearance from a Class-I Magistrate.

(c) ‘No Objection Certificate’ from neighbouring village(s) duly countersigned by an Administrative Officer.

(x) Administrative approval should be from an officer not below the rank of SDO(C).

(xi) No approval is required from extra-constitutional body like students’ union, tribal hoho(s).

Sd/- L. COLNEY Addl. Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland”

(Emphasis supplied)

Condition (v) of the aforesaid O.M. clearly lays down that if a new village

is constituted by the members of more than one village, in a different location

which is within the ancestral land of another parent village, then the new village

must obtain a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Village Council Chairman of

the said parent village while also indicating the boundaries of the new village.

5. In the meantime, there arose a boundary dispute between the districts of Kohima

(where the appellant village is located) and Dimapur (where the respondent

village is allegedly located). On 26.09.2000, a Committee (hereinafter, called the

“Ezong Committee”) was constituted by the Government of Nagaland to work

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 5 of 61 out and submit their recommendations as regards the demarcation of the inter-

district boundary between the aforesaid two districts, with particular reference to

the boundary between the Dhansiripar sub-division of the Dimapur District and

the Jalukai sub-division of the Kohima District. A new district called Peren

District has since been carved out of Kohima District and the Jalukai sub-division

now falls under the Peren District. On 28.05.2002, the Ezong Committee

submitted its report to the Additional Chief Secretary & Commissioner of

Nagaland. The Committee decided to give due consideration in placing the

villages associated with the ‘Sumi’ tribe under the Dimapur District and those

associated with the ‘Zeliangrong’ tribe under the Kohima district as far as

conveniently practicable and wherever the same was not possible, the boundary

was to be demarcated strictly in accordance with administrative convenience. The

Committee also suggested that it would be desirable for the State Government to

consider the issue of recognition of new villages existing in the disputed areas

only after the boundary demarcation between the two districts was finalized.

6. The Government of Nagaland issued one another Office Memorandum dated

01.10.2005 which introduced an additional criteria/condition in the process of

village recognition i.e., the requirement of a public notice providing a 30 day

period to the public to register their objections, if any, regarding the specific

village which is sought to be recognised. This notice which would also indicate

the area of land/boundary of the new village was to be issued by the Deputy

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 6 of 61 Commissioner of the concerned district. The authorities were specifically

implored to strictly abide by and adhere to the cumulative conditions mentioned

in the O.M. dated 22.03.1996 and the O.M. dated 01.10.2005, the failure of which

would result in the rejection of the application of village recognition. The

aforesaid O.M. dated 01.10.2005 is reproduced hereinbelow:

“ Government of Nagaland Home Department General Administration Branch-I

No. GAB-1/COM/108/2005

Dated Kohima, the 1st October, 2005

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Criteria/ conditions for recognition of new villages in Nagaland

In addition to the instructions contained in this Department's O.M. No.GA-12-13/74 dtd. 22/03/96 on the above mentioned subject, all cases relating to recognition of new villages in Nagaland, shall henceforth, with immediate effect, require a public notice to be issued by the Deputy Commissioner of the District concerned. The notice shall indicate the area of land/boundary of the village proposed for recognition, giving 30(thirty) days’ time for objection, if any, to be filed.

2. All other conditions/ criteria laid down in the O.M. under reference shall remain unchanged.

3. It is hereby impressed on all concerned that any proposal for recognition of village in Nagaland which does not comply with the prescribed conditions shall be rejected. District Administration shall therefore ensure strict adherence to these conditions/criteria while recommending cases to the Government.

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 7 of 61 Sd/-

Banuo Z. Jamir Principal Secretary to the Government of Nagaland”

(Emphasis supplied)

7. On 01.09.2007, the respondent no. 2, who is the Head Gaobura-cum-Council

Chairman of the respondent no. 1 village, had allegedly established the

respondent no.1 village which is affiliated to the ‘Sumi’ tribe. While it is the case

of the appellant that the said village falls within the bounds of their ancestral land,

the respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively instead contend that their village falls

within another district altogether i.e., the Dhansiripar sub-division of the

Dimapur District. With a view to initiate the process of recognition, on

24.03.2009, the respondent no. 2 submitted an application requesting the Deputy

Commissioner, Dimapur to depute a Survey Team and conduct a spot verification

of the respondent no. 1 village. On 10.09.2009, the spot verification report was

submitted which revealed that the respondent no. 1 village, admeasuring 1012

Acres, with a population of 300 people and 57 households, falls under the

Dhansiripar sub-division of the Dimapur district. It was said to be bounded by

Ghowoto Village in the North, K. Xekiye Village in the South, the Pathor

river/Ballu Nallah in the East and K. Xekiye Village in the West. The report also

observed that the respondent no. 1 village has no inter-boundary dispute at least

in so far as the neighbouring villages were concerned.

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 8 of 61

8. In order to expedite the recognition of the respondent no. 1 village, on

21.09.2009, the respondent no. 2 submitted yet another representation to the

Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur inter-alia stating that the respondent no. 1

village has been established with his own privately purchased land and that ‘No

Objection Certificates’ were obtained from their parental village i.e. Khumishi

‘A’ Village under the Zunheboto District and from all the villages currently

neighbouring the respondent no. 1 village i.e. Ghowoto Village and K. Xekiye

Village. Having complied with the conditions laid down in the O.M. dated

22.02.1996, it was requested that their application be forwarded to the

appropriate higher authorities with a recommendation that the respondent no. 1

village be recognised. Soon thereafter, on 30.09.2009, the local authorities had

also submitted other relevant documents to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur

which included the ‘No Objection Certificates’ from the Judicial Magistrate and

the Forest Department.

9. On 13.10.2009, whilst kickstarting the last leg of the village recognition process

and in accordance with the O.M. dated 01.10.2005, the Deputy Commissioner,

Dimapur published a public notice inviting claims/objections, if any, as regards

the recognition of the respondent no. 1 village within a period of 30 days. The

notice was also published in a local daily, “The Nagaland Post”, on the very next

day. On 16.10.2009, i.e., within two days of the public notice, the appellant raised

an objection to the proposal for granting recognition to the respondent no. 1

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 9 of 61 village with the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, predominantly for the reason

that it is sought to be established on the land ancestrally belonging to them. The

objection is also said to have been published in a local daily i.e., “The Morung

Express” on 19.10.2009. Vide communication dated 08.11.2009, the Deputy

Commissioner, Dimapur, directed the appellant to provide additional and

complete information as to how the respondent no. 1 village falls within their

land and the same was to be furnished within a period of 7 days, failing which

their objection would be nullified. Immediately on the ensuing day, i.e., on

09.11.2009, the appellant addressed a letter providing several pertinent

information along with some historical context as to how the respondent no. 1

village indeed fell within their ancestral land.

10. Despite the objections raised by the appellant herein, on 18.11.2009, the Deputy

Commissioner, Dimapur, submitted its recommendation for the recognition of

the respondent no. 1 village under the Dhansiripar sub-division of the Dimapur

District to the Commissioner, Nagaland. Pursuant to the above, a Cabinet

meeting was held on 14.12.2011 to deliberate on the issue of recognition of

villages. The State Cabinet had approved the proposal of the Home Department

for the recognition of a total of 34 villages listed therein. However, in so far as

the recognition of those villages listed between Sl. Nos. 19 to 24 were concerned,

the order of recognition was to be issued only after a joint verification was

conducted by the Deputy Commissioners of Peren and Dimapur respectively. It

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 10 of 61 is pertinent to note that the respondent no. 1 village featured at Sl. No. 23 in the

said list.

11. In compliance with the Cabinet decision aforementioned, a joint verification is

said to have been conducted on 08.03.2012. Thereafter, on 26.07.2012, the

Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur forwarded the joint verification report to the

Commissioner, Nagaland specifically indicating that both the joint verification

report and the map of the Dimapur District reveals that the respondent no. 1

village is situated within the Dhansiripar sub-division of the Dimapur District.

However, on the contrary, vide communication dated 23.08.2012, the Deputy

Commissioner, Peren, had refrained from offering any conclusive opinion as

regards the recognition of the respondent no. 1 stating that “the office of the D.C.

Peren has no further comments for recognition of the above two villages until the

boundary dispute between the two districts is settled”. Alluding to the opinion of

the Deputy Commissioner, Peren, the Office of the Commissioner, Nagaland also

addressed a letter dated 05.11.2012 to the Home Commissioner suggesting that

the recognition of two villages, i.e. the A.K. Industrial Village and the respondent

no. 1 village, be kept in abeyance until the inter-district boundary dispute is

resolved since the grant of recognition would motivate other villages in the

disputed areas to also seek recognition and cause serious unrest at the ground

level.

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 11 of 61

12. To address this issue effectively, a consultation meeting was held on 10.06.2013

under the auspices of the Home Ministry which included the Commissioner,

Nagaland, the Deputy Commissioner, Peren and the Deputy Commissioner,

Dimapur, amongst others, regarding the inter-district boundary dispute between

the Peren and Dimapur districts. It was decided that the boundary demarcation

which was recommended by the Ezong Committee in the year 2002 would be

notified for the purpose of inviting claims/objections from the public after due

approval from the Cabinet. It was further reiterated that, notwithstanding the

Cabinet decision to order recognition subject to joint verification having been

completed, the recognition of the respondent no. 1 village would stand deferred.

Consequently, the Cabinet accorded its approval for the publication of the Ezong

Committee report vide O.M. dated 05.09.2013 and the same was published in all

the local dailies on 20.09.2013. It is averred by the State of Nagaland that several

objections were received from different Hohos, Village Councils, Gaobura’s etc.

in response to the publication of the Ezong Committee report and that the issue

had further been referred to the district administration of Dimapur for an update

on the ground reality.

13. Notwithstanding the above Cabinet decision, on 05.03.2014, the Sub-Divisional

Officer (SDO) (Civil) of the Dhansiripar sub-division is said to have issued a

certificate of administrative approval for the recognition of the respondent no. 1

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 12 of 61 village while also recording that there were no objections against the recognition

of the said village from any quarter.

14. However, still having witnessed abysmal progress as regards its recognition, on

21.04.2014, the respondent no. 1 village along with the respondent no. 2 filed a

Writ Petition being W.P.(C) No. 65(K) of 2014 before the High Court of Gauhati,

Kohima Bench inter-alia seeking a writ of mandamus directing the State

government to take necessary steps for its recognition. Vide judgment and order

dated 21.04.2015, the Single Judge of the High Court directed the State to take

appropriate steps for the purpose of issuing formal order(s) for the recognition of

the respondent no. 1 within a period of 3 months. The High Court’s reasoning

was three-fold: –

(i) First, that all the criteria/conditions mentioned in the O.M.’s dated

22.03.1996 and 01.10.2005 respectively, for the recognition of the respondent

no. 1 village, were complied with. ‘No objection certificates’ were also issued

by the neighbouring villages i.e., Ghowoto Village on 16.08.2007 and K.

Xekiye Village on 30.11.2007 respectively. The public notice published in

the newspaper also yielded no objection from any quarter. The Cabinet had

then given its approval for recognition subject to a joint verification being

conducted by the Deputy Commissioners of the Peren and Dimapur districts.

Such a joint verification had also been completed. Therefore, all the steps for

the recognition of the respondent no. 1 as a village were duly undertaken.

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 13 of 61

(ii) Secondly, the main objection which was canvassed by the State was the

existence of an inter-district boundary dispute between the districts of Peren

and Dimapur and that until the same was resolved, recognition of the

respondent no. 1 village must be stalled. The High Court was at a loss to

understand how the inter-district boundary dispute was related to the issue at

hand and stated that it would have no bearing insofar as the issue of

recognition was concerned.

(iii) Thirdly, the High Court interpreted the communication of the Deputy

Commissioner, Peren, dated 23.08.2012 which was issued after the joint

verification was completed, to mean that she had no further comments

whatsoever to offer on the issue of recognition of the respondent no. 1

village. Therefore, it was held that the communication dated 05.11.2012 sent

from the office of the Commissioner, Nagaland to the Home Commissioner

which reflected upon the comments of the Deputy Commissioner, Peren was

done without any application of mind and was considered devoid of the other

circumstances which favoured the case of the respondent no. 1. The High

Court adopted such a view especially since the Cabinet had accorded its

approval subject only to a joint verification by the concerned authorities and

the said joint verification was completed.

15. The relevant observations made by the Single Judge of the High Court are

reproduced hereinbelow:

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 14 of 61

“6. As required by the O.M's dated 22.03.1996 and 01.10.2005, the respondents had carried out all formalities for recognition of the petitioner village and no objection certificates were also issued by the Ghowoto Village Council on 16.08.2007 and K. Xekiye Village Council on 30.11.2007.

as there was no objection from any quarter, survey was conducted and such report was also submitted on 10.09.2009. The Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur had also issued a public notice on 13.10.2009. Such public notice was also published in the local newspaper and as there was no further objection, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur by letter dated 18.11.2009 had written to the Commissioner, Nagaland, Kohima stating that all formalities has been completed and as such, the matter regarding recognition of the petitioner village was recommended. On such recommendation, the matter was put up before the cabinet and the cabinet on 14.12.2011 had given its approval for recognition of the petitioner's village along with 33 others. A condition was also laid down by the Cabinet that for the villages appearing at Serial No.19 to 24, a joint verification has to be done by the Deputy Commissioners of Dimapur and Peren under the supervision of Commissioner, Nagaland.

The name of the petitioner village appears at Serial No.23 and as required by the cabinet, joint verification was also conducted by the two Deputy commissioners of Dimapur and Peren.

7. The main taken by the State respondents is that there is a boundary dispute between the districts of Dimapur and Peren and therefore until and unless such boundary dispute is settled recognition cannot be given to the petitioner village. This Court is not in a position to understand the ground taken by the State respondents inasmuch as, the inter-district boundary dispute would have no bearing insofar as recognition of the petitioner's village is concerned. Important point of note is that all steps have been taken insofar as the recognition of the petitioner's village is concerned.

8. A reading of the communication dated 23.08.2012 written by the Deputy Commissioner, Peren would indicate that the Deputy Commissioner, Peren has no further comments for recognition of the two villages i.e. A.K. Industrial Village and

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 15 of 61 Kakiho Village (petitioner villages). The letter dated 23.08.2012 is reproduced herein below […]

9. Further, the letter of the Office of the Commissioner, Nagaland dated 05.11.2012 would clearly indicate that it has reflected only the comments of the Deputy Commissioner, Peren without application of mind. When the cabinet has given its approval subject to verification by two Deputy Commissioners of Dimapur and Peren districts and such verification having been already completed this Court is not in position to understand as to why the recognition of the petitioner's village has not been given till date.

10. This being the position, this Court has no hesitation to direct the State respondents to take steps for issuance of formal order(s) for recognition of the petitioner's village. Let such exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

11. Writ petition is allowed.

12. No costs.” (Emphasis supplied)

16. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the State preferred Writ Appeal No. 6(K) of 2015

against the judgment and order rendered by the Single Judge of the High Court.

Vide judgement and order dated 07.10.2015, the Division Bench of the High

Court acknowledged that the respondent no. 1 village is situated on the boundary

between the Peren and Dimapur districts, which is predominantly inhabited by

different tribes and that this was the foremost reason as to why the issue of

boundary demarcation has become a sensitive one. However, since it was pleaded

that the government was taking necessary steps for effecting the demarcation

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 16 of 61 which would in turn enable the issuance of a formal order of recognition of the

respondent no. 1 village, the Court extended the time granted by the Single Judge

by another four months from the date of the impugned decision. The relevant

observations are reproduced hereinbelow:

“From the submissions of the learned Addl. A.G, it is quite clear that State is not contesting the judgment on merit. It appears from the submissions made that the village of the respondents/writ petitioners is situated on the boundary between Dimapur and Peren districts, both districts being pre-dominantly inhabited by members of different tribes. Therefore, demarcation of the boundary of the village has become a sensitive issue. However, the Government is taking necessary steps for making the demarcation to enable issuance of formal order of recognition of the respondents village as directed by learned Single Judge. But considering the sensitiveness of the matter, some more time may be required to complete the exercise, he submits.

Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that he would have no objection for grant of time to the State for issuance of the consequential order of recognition of the village.

The being the position, we extend the time of 3 months granted by the learned Single Judge by another period of 4 months effective from today. Appellant State shall issue the formal order of recognition of respondents village within this extended period of 4 months.

This disposes of the writ appeal.” (Emphasis supplied)

17. It is the case of the appellant that despite being a necessary and proper party to

the writ petition filed before the High Court by the respondent no. 1 village, they

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 17 of 61 were not impleaded in the said proceedings. Having come across the impugned

decision subsequently and also having learnt that effective steps to issue orders

for the recognition of the respondent no. 1 village were being undertaken by the

State, the appellant is before us with the present appeal.

B. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

i. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant

18. Mr. Parthiv K. Goswami, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of

the appellant, submitted that the appellant was a necessary and proper party in

the adjudication of the dispute before the High Court on account of the fact

that the respondent no. 1 village falls within their ancestral land and that they

had also filed objections to the Public Notice dated 13.10.2009. Hence, the

impugned decision, having been passed in the absence of the appellant would

be bad in law, in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore,

deserves to be set aside on this ground alone.

19. He submitted that the issue of granting recognition to a village falls within

the domain of the executive decision making. It is well settled that in exercise

of the power of judicial review, a writ court can only examine the decision-

making process, and not substitute the decision under consideration with its

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 18 of 61 own decision. Therefore, once the state government/cabinet had taken a

decision to keep recognition of the respondent no. 1 village in abeyance upon

a consideration of several relevant factors, the High Court had committed a

serious error by issuing a mandamus and directing the grant of a formal

recognition order, more so, when the question as to whether the respondent

no. 1 village falls within the ancestral land of the appellant is a disputed

question of fact which needs proper examination at the ground level. The

impugned decision, which was passed in the absence of the appellant was

neither alive to the existence of such a dispute nor did it have the assistance of

the material now being placed on record by the appellant.

20. It was further submitted that a new village is generally only established within

the community land which is owned by its inhabitants. The establishment and

recognition of a new village on ancestral land of another village results in

transfer of ownership of the land to the newly created village. It is for this

reason that upon the establishment of a new village on a land which

ancestrally belongs to another village, the prevailing custom requires a ‘No

Objection Certificate’ of the parent/ancestral village. The said custom is

recognized in the O.M. dated 22.03.1996 and also finds codification in the

Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act, 1978 (for short, the “1978 Act”),

more specifically Sections 3 and 4 thereof.

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 19 of 61

21. He vehemently submitted that a bare perusal of the British Survey Map of

1921-1923, shows that the area admeasuring approx. 1000 acres which is said

to be owned by the respondent no. 1 village falls within the larger area

ancestrally owned by the appellant. Furthermore, he submitted that there also

exists an agreement between the appellant and the Dhansiripar sub-division

(within which the respondent no. 1 village is allegedly situated) where the

Dhansiripar Village Council has also explicitly stated that their land falls

within the absolute jurisdiction of the appellant. According to customary law

governing land ownership and transfer in Nagaland, the inhabitants of a newly

established village falling within the land ancestrally owned by another village

are required to seek the consent of the parent village and also pay a nominal

annual token of acknowledgment called ‘rampwa lunget’. Such prior consent

of the parent/ ancestral village is a condition precedent even under the O.M.

dated 22.03.1996. It was submitted that the said policy was backed by a sound

rationale and the non-adherence thereof would result in frustrating the very

purpose behind it i.e., the peaceful co-existence of the neighbouring villages

and/or the predominant tribes inhabiting them, especially considering that

inter-tribal conflicts continue to remain a very sensitive issue in the State.

Hence, no formal order(s) of recognition of the respondent no. 1 village can

be issued in the absence of a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the appellant.

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 20 of 61

22. With a view to emphasize the importance of the customary practices in the

State of Nagaland governing social practices and ownership and transfer of

land, the counsel placed great emphasis on Article 371A of the Constitution,

which was introduced immediately prior to the creation of the State of

Nagaland in 1963 by the 13th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1962. He

submitted that Article 371A of the Constitution inter alia recognizes the

importance of safeguarding the social practices of the Nagas along with the

customary laws and traditions existing in the region by specifically excluding

any law made by the Parliament in respect of certain matters from application

in the State of Nagaland, unless a resolution to that effect is passed by the

Legislative Assembly. Customary practices that govern land ownership and

transfer would subsume under themselves the issues relating to village

establishment and recognition as well and therefore, would fall within the

protection afforded under Article 371A.

23. The counsel reiterated that the present matter is a clear case of encroachment

which has been committed by the respondent no. 1 and its villagers. The

respondent no. 1 villagers are from the ‘Sumi’ tribe whose ancestral home is

in the district of Zunheboto, Nagaland. The ancestral home of the Respondent

Village is ‘Khumishi A’ Village in sub-division Asuto, falling within the

Zunheboto district. The Counsel also brought our attention to a complaint for

eviction which was filed by the appellant with the Deputy Commissioner,

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 21 of 61 Peren, much prior to the inauguration of the respondent no. 1 village i.e., on

22.01.2005, alleging that the respondent no. 1 village has been illegally

established on their land. Addressing the same, on 07.04.2005, the Office of

the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Jalukie is said to have communicated the

decision of the Deputy Commissioner, Peren and issued an eviction order

directing the villagers belonging to the respondent no. 1 village to vacate the

‘encroached land’ within a period of 15 days, upon failure of which

appropriate legal action would be initiated. In light of the same, the counsel

submitted that it is a well settled principle of law that “to seek equity, one must

do equity”. The respondent no.1, having encroached upon the ancestral land

of the appellant without following the conditions precedent for the

establishment of a new village, has no right to seek equity, more so having

approached the court with unclean hands by suppressing the fact that the

appellant had filed objections to the public notice issued on 13.10.2009.

24. In the last, the counsel brought our attention to the fact that since the

respondent no. 1 village is unrecognized, its villagers have the right to obtain

all facilities which are due to them from their parent village, namely, the

‘Khumishi A’ Village of sub-division Asuto falling under the Zunheboto

District till such time the formal order(s) for their recognition is granted.

Therefore, it may not be correct to suggest that the villagers of the respondent

no. 1 would be denied all the benefits that they otherwise may be entitled to,

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 22 of 61 thereby, causing an infringement of their fundamental right to life under

Article 21 of the Constitution.

25. In light of the aforesaid, the counsel prayed that the impugned decision be set

aside and the State authorities be directed to take a final call on the issue of

recognition of the respondent no. 1 village, in a time-bound manner, after

taking into consideration the objections of the appellant. Furthermore, it was

also prayed that in the event that the State authorities arrive at a decision which

goes against the appellants, their right to take recourse to available legal

remedies before the appropriate forum, be protected.

ii. Submissions on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2

26. Ms. Renuka Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.

1 and 2 respectively submitted that the appellant was not a necessary party

both in the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal before the High Court.

27. It was submitted what while an objection was raised by the appellant to the

public notice dated 13.10.2009 vide its letter dated 16.10.2009, the Office of

the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur had replied to the same vide its

communication dated 08.11.2009 and directed the appellant to provide

additional and sufficient details to back their claim that the respondent no. 1

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 23 of 61 village would fall within the boundary of their ancestral land. However, it was

the appellant who has failed to produce any such document. Therefore,

naturally, the objections raised by the appellant were nullified.

28. The counsel further submitted that there exist around 16 recognised and

unrecognised villages along with the 18th Assam Rifles Head Quarter between

the boundary of the respondent no. 1 village and the appellant. The respondent

no. 1 village is bound by Ghowoto village in the north, K. Xekiye Village in

the South, the Pathor River/Ballu Nallah in the East and the K. Xekiye Village

in the West. The same is also evident in the map which reveals the boundaries

of the respondent no. 1 village. Therefore, the counsel submitted that the issue

of the inter-district boundary, if any, has nothing to do with the recognition of

the respondent no. 1 and that she was at a loss to understand how the appellant

would be affected in any manner if the respondent no. 1 village is granted

recognition. This was more so because the respondent no. 2 has established

the respondent no. 1 village in a self-acquired land i.e., the Zhuthovi Village,

which is a recognized village under the Dhansiripar Sub-Division, Dimapur

District, had donated land to Ghowoto Village, which in turn had donated land

to the respondent no. 1 village.

29. The counsel submitted that the respondent no. 1 village has duly complied

with all the formalities for the recognition of a new village as required by the

O.M.’s dated 22.03.1996 and 1.10.2005. i.e., - (a) ‘No Objection Certificates’

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 24 of 61 were obtained from the neighbouring villages on 16.08.2007 and 30.11.2007

respectively, (b) a Survey report dated 10.09.2009 was submitted by the local

authorities, (c) A public notice dated 13.10.2009 was issued by the Deputy

Commissioner, Dimapur, (d) The Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur vide its

letter dated 18.11.2009 addressed to the Commissioner of Nagaland, Kohima,

confirmed that all formalities for the recognition of the respondent no. 1

village were completed, (e) On 14.12.2011, the Cabinet given its approval for

the recognition of the respondent no. 1 village subject to a joint verification,

(f) On 23.08.2012, the joint verification was conducted by the Deputy

Commissioners of Dimapur and Peren in compliance with the Cabinet’s

condition and the Deputy Commissioner, Peren stated that he had no further

objections. In light of the aforesaid, it was submitted that, having complied

with all the requirements, recognition must be granted to the respondent no. 1

village.

30. The counsel acknowledged that Article 371A pertains to special provisions

vis-à-vis the State of Nagaland whereby the State is granted immunity in

respect of Parliament made law with respect to certain matters. However, it

was her case that while individual ‘Acts of Parliament’ may not apply, certain

overarching principles under the Constitution, including the Fundamental

Rights guaranteed under Part III would still find application in the State of

Nagaland. The very object and purpose of the enactment of Article 371A was

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 25 of 61 to keep the interest and welfare of people of Nagaland at the forefront.

Therefore, such a provision cannot be utilised to the detriment of its people.

Hence, under the garb of customary and religious practices which are

protected by Article 371A, the fundamental rights, more particularly Articles

14, 19 and 21 respectively, cannot be sought to be abridged. To fortify her

submissions, the counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in PUCL

& Anr. Vs. State of Nagaland and Ors., (Civil Appeal No. 3607 of 2016) and

the decision of the Gauhati High Court in Mangyang Lima v. State of

Nagaland and Ors, reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Gau 3494.

31. The counsel submitted that the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21

respectively, of the villagers belonging to the respondent no. 1 village were

being infringed owing to that fact that their ‘unrecognised’ status deprives

them access to several facilities and schemes provided by the Central and State

governments. This denial of Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS) and State

Sponsored Schemes (SSS) hampers their fundamental developmental rights

which are critical to social and economic progress. These would include:

i. Village Development Board (V.D.B.) : The absence of a V.D.B. in the

respondent no. 1 village has stripped them off the power to independently

plan, implement, and oversee infrastructure along with providing services

and amenities using funds from the Rural Development Department. The

essential schemes to which access has been denied as a consequence

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 26 of 61 include the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act

(MGNREGA), Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Gramin (PMAY-G),

Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY), Deen Dayal Upadhyaya

Grameen Kaushalya Yojana (DDU-GKY), National Rural Livelihoods

Mission (NRLM) etc.

ii. Public Works Department (PWD): No roads are constructed, nor is

maintenance work undertaken in the absence of official recognition of the

respondent no. 1 village.

iii. Health Department: The village is denied access to critical health care

infrastructure such as Primary Health Centres or dispensaries.

iv. Education Department: There is no establishment of government

schools for primary or secondary education, depriving children of their

fundamental right to education.

v. Food and Civil Supplies Department: Essential food security schemes

under the National Food Security Act (NFSA) remain inaccessible. These

include (a) Antyodaya Anna Yojana scheme where a household receives

35 kg of food grains per month and (b) Priority House Hold scheme where

up to 5 kg of subsidized food grains per family member, per month, is

granted.

vi. Forest Department: Recognized villages benefit from the grant of free

tree saplings, annually, for environmental protection and improvement.

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 27 of 61 vii. Horticulture and Agriculture Department: Free fruit saplings, free

vegetable saplings, farming machinery, tools, and equipment critical to

agricultural development are all denied to the respondent no. 1 village.

viii. Land Resources Department: Free saplings of cash crops like Arecanut,

Coffee, and local spices such as broom grass, naganeem, lali, kadam etc.

which foster sustainable livelihoods are also denied.

ix. Transport Department: Public transport facilities essential for

connectivity and mobility are also not extended to unrecognized villages,

perpetuating isolation and backwardness.

32. In the last, it was submitted that the fundamental rights and Directive

Principles of State Policy under Parts III and IV of the Constitution

respectively, form the bedrock of our Constitution and cannot be over-

shadowed by Article 371A or any other customary law of the State, since the

rule of law and constitutional supremacy must remain paramount. Having

already complied with the procedural requirements for its recognition, the

objections raised by appellant, cloaked under the guise of special provisions

and customary practices, are clearly legally untenable and morally unjust.

Such opposition seeks to perpetuate inequality and injustice, denying the

residents of the respondent no. 1 village their rightful access to essential

services.

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 28 of 61

33. In light of the aforesaid, it was submitted that the impugned decision not be

interfered with and that the State Government be directed to take immediate

steps for the recognition of the respondent no. 1 village, without any further

delay.

iii. Submissions on behalf of the State

34. Ms. Enatoli Sema, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of

Nagaland submitted that the Ezong Committee which was tasked to demarcate

the inter-district boundary between the Dhansiripar Sub-Division of Dimapur

District and Jalukie Sub-Division of Peren, Kohima District had

recommended in its Report dated 28.05.2002 that the Government recognise

villages in the disputed areas only after the boundary demarcation is finalised.

She submitted that the while the appellant belongs to the Jalukie sub-division,

the respondent no. 1 belonged to the Dhansiripar sub-division. The Report had

also recorded that several rounds of meetings were held with the

representatives of both the communities belonging to the disputing villages

but no mutually agreeable decision could be arrived at. Therefore, the attempt

of the Government to amicably settle the issue way back in 2002 was rendered

futile. Subsequently, the Ezong Committee Report of 2002 was placed before

the Cabinet wherein, the recognition of the respondent No.1 village was

recommended to be kept in abeyance. The Report was then published and

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 29 of 61 several objections and counter-claims were filed before the Government

which are being reviewed.

35. It was submitted that after the Single Judge of the High Court had directed

the grant of recognition of the respondent no. 1 village, the State had preferred

an appeal before the High Court since the inter-district boundary demarcation

was pending and on-going. The State, while keeping in mind the past instances

of violence in the disputed areas wished to amicably settle the dispute between

the parties herein, in order to avoid any untoward situation relating to the two

communities in the area.

36. The counsel submitted that pursuant to the order of this Court dated

13.01.2017, a meeting dated 16.03.2017 was held between both the parties in

the presence of the Deputy Commissioners of the concerned districts. In the

aforesaid meeting, while both the parties could not arrive at a logical

conclusion, they agreed to (a) maintain peace and tranquillity between the

villages located in the inter-district boundaries i.e., Peren and Dimapur

Districts; and (b) form a Committee amongst themselves comprising of a

convenor and three representatives each from both sides. However, the

counsel submitted that no report from the aforesaid committee has been

received by the concerned authorities till date.

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 30 of 61

37. It was submitted that since the dispute between the two villages pertain to and

touch upon Inter-District Boundary dispute between the Peren and Dimapur

Districts respectively, the State constituted a Cabinet Sub-Committee vide

Notification No. GAB-1/333/2014 (VOL-I) 309 dated 7.8.2019. The mandate

of the said Sub-Committee was to look into the setting up of new settlement

‘Lamhai Namdi’ and finalise the boundary demarcation between the two

Districts of Peren and Dimapur in order to arrive at a solution to solve the

present impasse. The Sub-Committee physically visited the spot on 14.9.2019

and on 23.10.2019, a consultative meeting with both the Hoho’s/ Tribal

Organisations, in the presence of both the respective Deputy Commissioners

was held whereby the Hoho’s/Tribal organisations were directed to submit

additional documents. Finally, the Report of the Sub-Committee was placed

before the cabinet on 13.7.2021. Pursuant to the Report of the Sub-Committee,

a new District called Chumoukedima was carved out in 2021 and therefore,

the inter-district dispute between the two villages presently falls between the

Peren and Chumoukedima districts.

38. Furthermore, it was submitted that pursuant to the intervention of this Court

vide order dated 3.12.2024 and in the interest of maintaining peace between

the two communities, the State convened two meetings on 21.12.2024 and

3.1.2025 respectively with the disputing villages. The discussions during the

meeting revealed that the outstanding issues between the two villages have

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 31 of 61 narrowed down. There is every chance of a positive negotiation between the

parties which may lead to a final settlement. Therefore, the counsel submitted

that in order to facilitate such a settlement, a final chance be given to the State

so that the two villages can meet under the aegis of the tribal councils,

consisting of tribal elders, as provided under Section 26 of the Nagaland

Village and Tribal Councils Act, 1978. This section enjoins the tribal council

to inter-alia, “assist settlement of disputes and cases involving breaches of

customary laws and usages.”.

C. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

39. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone

through the materials on record, the following questions fall for our

consideration:

I. Whether it could be said that the respondent no. 1 village had fulfilled

all the necessary conditions/criteria for the issuance of formal order(s)

of recognition as per the O.M.’s dated 22.03.1996 and 01.10.2005

respectively, especially in light of the fact that the appellant had raised

objections to the Public Notice dated 13.10.2009?

II. Whether the existence of an “inter-district boundary dispute” was a

valid reason to keep the recognition of the respondent no. 1 village in

abeyance?

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 32 of 61 D. ANALYSIS

i. Whether all the necessary conditions/criteria for the issuance of formal

order(s) of recognition as per the O.M.’s dated 22.03.1996 and 01.10.2005 respectively were fulfilled?

40. Article 371A of the Constitution which was inserted by the Constitution

(Thirteenth Amendment) Act, 1962 and which came into effect on 01.12.1963

carves out a special provision as regards the State of Nagaland. It specifically

provides that no Act of Parliament in respect of the religious or social practices

of the Nagas, Naga customary law and procedure, and ownership and transfer

of land and its resources, amongst others, shall apply to the State of Nagaland

unless the Legislative Assembly of the State decides to adopt them through a

specific resolution to that effect. The relevant portion of Article 371A reads

thus:

“371A. Special provision with respect to the State of Nagaland.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,—

(a) no Act of Parliament in respect of—

(i) religious or social practices of the Nagas;

(ii) Naga customary law and procedure;

(iii) administration of civil and criminal justice involving decisions according to Naga customary law;

(iv) ownership and transfer of land and its resources, shall apply to the State of Nagaland unless the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland by a resolution so decides;”

(Emphasis supplied)

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 33 of 61

41. The insertion of Article 371A was the outcome of a political settlement which

culminated after a decade-long struggle and is also a reflection of the grant of

the right to ‘self-rule’ and political autonomy to the people of Nagaland.3 The

decision of the Gauhati High Court in Sabeituo Mechulho and Ors v. State

of Nagaland and Ors. reported in 2011 SCC OnLine Gau 592 which held

that Article 371A has no role to play in the matter of provision of reservation

to a woman representative belonging to a society/NGO in the Village Council

or local body, had the occasion to deal with the reason behind the insertion of

a special provision in the nature of Article 371A. The High Court emphasized

the lofty purpose for which such a provision had been included in the

Constitution i.e., the preservation of the distinct identity of the Naga people

by allowing them to live with their distinct religious and social practices,

customs, traditions etc. The relevant observations are thus:

“10. This provision has been made to preserve the identity of Naga People by allowing them to live with their distinct religious, social practice, customs, tradition, etc. They have been given opportunity to administer civil and criminal justice as per their customary law. Article 371A is silent about the share of participation of Naga men and women in the local administration. There is no mention about reservation for Naga Woman representative in the local administration. In my considered view article 371A has no role to pay or application in the matter of providing reservation for woman representative in the Village Council or local body. This provision is for a mighty and lofty purpose/aim to preserve the distinct identity of Naga people for which it has been made incumbent upon the parliament to

3 RAJYA SABHA DEB., (Sep. 3, 1962) 4660.

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 34 of 61 have the approval of the Nagaland State Legislature before any Act is implemented or enforced in the State of Nagaland. The parliament would not have any say in the matter of providing reservation for woman in the local body like Village Council. It is the State Government which is required to enact law or rules for such purpose.”

(Emphasis supplied)

42. In the debates which ensued in the Rajya Sabha as regards the passing of the

Constitution (Thirteenth Amendment) Bill, 1962 and the State of Nagaland

Bill, 1962, the then Prime Minister of India, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru, remarked

that “Anyhow, it is for the people of Nagaland to make their rules about their

land”4. It is the case of the appellant that the issue of village establishment and

recognition falls within the larger umbrella of “ownership and transfer of land

and its resources” and is rooted in certain unique social and customary

practices and procedures. In this context, it is relevant for us to refer to the

provisions of the 1978 Act, especially Section 3 thereof which reads thus:

“Section 3 - Constitution: Every recognised Village shall have a Village Council.

Explanation: Village means and includes an area recognised as a Village as such by the Government of Nagaland. An area in order to be a Village under this act shall fulfil the following conditions namely:

(a) The land in the area belong to the population of that area or given to them by the Government of Nagaland, if the land in question is a Government land or is land given to them by the lawful owner of the land; and

4 Ibid at 4716.

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 35 of 61

(b) The Village is established according to the usage and customary practice of the population of the area.”

(Emphasis supplied)

43. The Explanation to Section 3, elaborates on the meaning of a ‘Village’. It

states that a village would mean and include “an area which is recognised as

a village by the Government of Nagaland”. Furthermore, an area in order to

be recognised as a village must fulfil certain conditions i.e. – The land/area in

which the village exists must either belong to the population in that area or be

given to such a village/population by the Government of Nagaland/lawful

owner AND, the village must be established according to the usages and

customary practices of the population belonging to that area. The land in

question would be given to the village population by the government if it is a

government land and if otherwise, by the lawful owner of the land.

44. Therefore, a great amount of emphasis is placed primarily on two things –

One, ownership of the land, either communally by the village as a whole or

individually by the members of the village; and two, the adherence to the

existing customary practices in the process of ‘recognition’ of the village. The

State Government is empowered to recognise a particular area as a ‘village’

in accordance with Section 3 of the 1978 Act, upon the fulfilment of the

conditions mentioned therein and only when an application is made to them

in that behalf by a section of people inhabiting the particular area which is

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 36 of 61 sought to be given a recognised status. In such an application, the people

residing in such an area must be able to show in a bona fide and sufficient

manner that they are the lawful owners of the said area/land and that they have

established their village as per the existing customary practices.

45. The two O.M.’s dated 22.03.1996 and 01.10.2005 respectively, elaborates on

the process which is to accompany such a claim for recognition. These O.M.’s

are said to also mirror and codify the existing customs pertaining to village

recognition in the State. A bare reading of the two O.M.’s reveals that the idea

of consent and communication between all the relevant stakeholders is

cardinal and fundamental to the process of village recognition. We say so

because, in the O.M. dated 22.03.1996, apart from the conditions stipulating

that a village must have a minimum of 30 houses with a population of not less

than 150 people, have sufficient land for its expansion and agricultural

purposes and be constituted by indigenous inhabitants, it is also required that

‘No Objection Certificates’ be obtained from several stakeholders. Condition

(v) stands testament to this and states that when a new village is constituted

by members of more than one village, but in a different location and within

the ancestral land of a parent village, the Village Council Chairman of such a

parent village must give a ‘No Objection Certificate’ while indicating the

boundaries of the new village which is sought to be established and later,

recognised. When the exact boundaries of the village cannot be determined, it

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 37 of 61 is required that the Village Council Chairman of the parent village along with

all the Gaobura’s of the parent village decide upon the nature of the boundaries

with the new village, on any permanent basis, which is acceptable to both

parties. Additionally, if the parent village has appointed Gaobura’s who are

allowed to function as the constitutional head of the village in matters of

administration of the village land, then the concerned Gaobura’s must also

attest their signatures to the ‘No Objection Certificate’ along with the Village

Council Chairman.

46. A joint survey of the newly established village is also conducted by competent

personnel and authorities belonging to the Land Records & Survey

Department and other appropriate civil authorities to demarcate, map and

record the area of the village. Apart from the same, clearance in the form of a

‘No Objection Certificate’ is also required from the appropriate officials of the

Forest Department, a Class-I Magistrate and the neighbouring villages.

Finally, after all the clearances and procedures are complied with, an

administrative approval would be given by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO)

and the matter of recognition of the said village would be referred to the higher

authorities of the District administration who would place their proposal(s) for

recognition before the government.

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 38 of 61

47. The O.M. dated 01.10.2005, which brought in the requirement of issuance of

a public notice by the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district also

places the idea of mutual consent from all concerned parties at the forefront.

This notice must mandatorily contain details as regards the area of the land

and the boundary of the village whose recognition is being proposed. A period

of 30 days is provided to the public to file objections, if any. This additional

criterion, again, fortifies the assertion that all the relevant parties/villages must

be apprised of and also be on board with the recognition of the new village.

48. The raison d’être behind the issuance of a public notice is that one last

opportunity be given to those interested parties/villages who might be

adversely affected by the recognition of the new village but who were

otherwise left out from the process preceding the publication of notice and to

also ensure that a transparent platform is provided for them to put forth their

case with reasons so that they can be heard before any further progress is made

in the matter. This would further obviate any possibility of a subsequent

conflict occurring in the area between two or more villages laying claim over

a particular land. On this aspect, the appellant is right in submitting that there

is a sound rationale behind the existence of such a procedure i.e., the peaceful

co-existence of the neighbouring village and/or the predominant tribes

inhabiting the areas, especially considering that inter-tribal conflicts remain a

very sensitive issue in the State.

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 39 of 61

49. However, what we would like to further point out is that it is the bounden duty

of the State and its relevant authorities to adequately and appropriately

consider any and all such objections which may be raised by the interested

parties in response to the public notice issued by them, provided that they are

lodged within the stipulated time-period. Otherwise, the very object of issuing

a public notice would be vitiated. In the present case, the said public notice

was issued on 13.10.2009 and vide communication dated 16.10.2009, the

appellant had raised its objections to the recognition of the respondent no. 1

village by contending that that the respondent no. 1 village is in fact sought to

be established on their land. The objection is said to have also been published

in a local daily on 18.10.2009. The Office of the Deputy Commissioner,

Dimapur vide its letter dated 08.11.2009 had directed the appellant to furnish

more comprehensive details along with the relevant boundaries and records to

incidate as to how the respondent no. 1 village would fall within their land.

The authorities further stipulated that, if the same is not provided within a

period of 7 days, their objection dated 16.10.2009 would stand nullified. On

the ensuing day i.e., on 09.11.2009, the appellant sent a reply providing details

supporting their claim to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur. It is unclear as

to what extent the aforesaid communication made by the appellant was

considered by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur before additional steps

were taken to forward the proposal for recognition of the respondent no. 1

village to the government. The State of Nagaland has not made a single

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 40 of 61 averment regarding the merits of the claim made by the appellant over the land

in which the respondent no. 1 village is situated. It is not the case of the State

of Nagaland that the claims made by the appellant are absolutely baseless and

devoid of merit as well. Therefore, we are at a loss to understand how it can

be contended, both by the State of Nagaland and by the respondent nos. 1 and

2 respectively, that the conditions/criteria laid down in the two O.M.’s,

especially the latter O.M. dated 01.10.2005, were fulfilled in the present case.

50. With the existing procedure that is prescribed for the recognition of a village

in the State of Nagaland, we are of the view that it would not be open for the

respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively to blanketly assail the right of the

appellant to raise its objections as regards the recognition of the respondent

no. 1 village. However, what we would like to highlight is that it is the

responsibility of the State to weed out frivolous objections and those devoid

of merit from the process, in such a manner that the rights of the village

seeking recognition are not prejudiced. What would be appropriate at this

juncture is for the State to consider the objections of the appellant on their own

merits and decide whether their ‘No objection’ is a pre-requisite for the grant

of recognition of the respondent no. 1 village or not. If answered in the

negative, the appellant would have no locus to challenge the recognition of the

respondent no. 1 village and the matter would be put to bed at least insofar as

these two parties are concerned. Only in the instance that the said question is

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 41 of 61 answered in the affirmative, would the respondent no. 1 village be required to

initiate conversation with representatives of the appellant, to arrive at a

mutually beneficial settlement and prevent the risk of any adverse measures

being taken against them.

ii. Whether the existence of an “inter-district boundary dispute” was a valid reason to keep the recognition of the respondent no. 1 village in abeyance?

51. The demarcation of the inter-district boundary between the districts of

Kohima and Dimapur and its nexus with the recognition of village(s) was first

brought to the fore by the Ezong Committee Report. While undertaking the

task of boundary demarcation and receiving information from all corners, it

was observed that groups belonging to both districts had claims and

counterclaims over pieces of land irrespective of whether they had effective

physical possession of the said land. The broad consensus amongst the

concerned parties was to place all the villages affiliated with the ‘Sumi’ tribe

in the Dimapur District and those affiliated to the ‘Zeliangrong’ tribe under

the Kohima district. This aspect is relevant for us since the appellant belongs

to the ‘Zeliangrong’ tribe, while the respondent no. 1 village is affiliated to the

‘Sumi’ tribe.

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 42 of 61

52. In the course of examining the issue of boundary demarcation, the Committee

was apprised of certain newly established villages which were seeking

recognition. It was in this context that the Committee was of the opinion that

it would be desirable if the government considers the question of recognition

of these newly established villages in the disputed areas after the boundary

demarcation between the two districts was finalised. It is, however,

noteworthy that while suggesting the final boundary which is to run between

the two districts, more particularly the Jalukie sub-division of Peren in the

Kohima District and the Dhansiripar sub-division in the Dimapur District, the

Committee noted that there were some practical difficulties in placing all the

‘Sumi’ villages in Dimapur and all the ‘Zeliangrong’ village in Kohima

respectively. Therefore, from a purely administrative standpoint, it was

decided that ‘Kiyevi A’ which is a ‘Sumi’ village would be placed under the

Kohima District and ‘Mhaikam’ which is a ‘Zeliangrong’ village would be

placed under the Dimapur District. Therefore, in the eventuality that the

respondent no. 1 village, a ‘Sumi’ village, is given recognition but the

boundary demarcation is decided in such a manner that they would be placed

under the Kohima (now Peren) District instead of the Dimapur District, the

same would not be an outlier considering that there exists another ‘Sumi’

village which was also suggested to be placed under the Kohima (now Peren)

District by the aforesaid Committee for administrative reasons.

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 43 of 61

53. In the meantime, the respondent no. 1 had applied for recognition in the year

2009 and their proposal was elevated for a final decision to the Cabinet after

allegedly complying with the requirements under the O.M.’s dated 22.03.1996

and 01.10.2005 respectively. The Cabinet in its meeting dated 14.12.2011 had

directed that out of the 34 villages whose proposal for recognition was being

considered, a set of 6 villages, which included the respondent no. 1 village

herein, would be required to undergo a joint verification conducted by the

Deputy Commissioners of Peren and Dimapur districts respectively. Now,

once the joint verification was complete, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur

vide communication dated 26.07.2012 reiterated that the respondent no. 1

village would fall within the Dhansiripar sub-division of the Dimapur District.

However, the Deputy Commissioner, Peren vide communication dated

23.08.2012 seems to have again referred to the issue of the “inter-distrct

boundary dispute” by stating that “the office of the D.C. peren has no further

comments for recognition…until the boundary dispute between the two

districts is settled”. Due to the aforesaid observation made by the Deputy

Commissioner, Peren, the Office of the Commissioner, Nagaland vide

communication dated 05.11.2012 addressed to the Home Commissioner had

suggested that the recognition of the respondent no. 1 village and another

village by the name ‘A.K. Industrial village’, be kept in abeyance till such time

the boundary issue is resolve since this would invite more villages in the

disputed area to seek recognition and cause an environment of serious unrest.

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 44 of 61 Additionally, the Commissioner also invited attention to the Ezong Committee

Report which had recorded its detailed recommendations on the issue of the

boundary dispute between the two districts and sought necessary action on the

matter.

54. Despite granting a formal approval to the Ezong Committee Report on

24.10.2003, it was only after the aforesaid development that a decision was

made to notify the Ezong Committee Report for inviting claims and objections

from the public. Such a decision was taken by the Cabinet in its consultation

meeting as late as 10.06.2013 i.e., more than 10 years after the Ezong

Committee Report was submitted for necessary action. The Cabinet had,

again, emphasized that the recognition of the respondent no. 1 village would

be kept in abeyance until such time the recommendations of the Ezong

Committee is finally notified.

55. In the writ proceedings which was initiated by the respondent no. 1 before the

Single Judge of the High Court, the stance taken by the State was that they

could not decide on the recognition of the respondent no. 1 due to the

subsisting inter-district boundary dispute. It was averred that they were in the

midst of examining the multiple objections received after the

recommendations of the Ezong Committee Report was notified for inviting

views from the public. Furthermore, it was also submitted that they were

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 45 of 61 awaiting a ground reality report on the issue. This stance, however, did not

seem to find favour with the Single Judge of the High Court who went on to

observe that “the inter-district boundary dispute would have no bearing

insofar as the recognition of the petitioner’s village is concerned”. However,

the State preferred a Writ Appeal and the Division Bench in its impugned

decision had extended the time-limit for the issuance of formal order(s) of

recognition of the respondent no. 1 village by observing as follows:

“[…] It appears from the submissions made that the village of the respondents/writ petitioners is situated on the boundary between Dimapur and Peren districts, both districts being pre-dominantly inhabited by members of different tribes. Therefore, demarcation of the boundary of the village has become a sensitive issue. However, the Government is taking necessary steps for making the demarcation to enable issuance of formal order of recognition of the respondents village as directed by learned Single Judge. But considering the sensitiveness of the matter, some more time may be required to complete the exercise, he submits.” (Emphasis supplied)

Therefore, the impugned decision while agreeing with the Single Judge

that the inter-district boundary dispute had nothing to do with the recognition

of the respondent no. 1 village appears to have nevertheless been convinced

with the argument canvassed by the State at least for the purpose of allowing

some additional time to the State authorities.

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 46 of 61 56. Under circumstances such as these, i.e., when the State has taken a policy

decision or through its Cabinet has arrived at a certain conclusion, in their

wisdom, after exhaustively considering all the relevant factors and

recommendations, it would not be appropriate for courts to interfere or

supplant the finding arrived at by the government. In the absence of any patent

arbitrariness, capriciousness, mala fides or illegality, courts have always

subscribed to the rule that executive decision-making must not be dissected

and prodded unnecessarily. This is specially true for a State like Nagaland

wherein the system of administration and governance is slightly different from

the other States and where the government might be more familiar and

informed of the ground realities that exist. In such scenarios, yielding to the

executive expertise might be the right call. This judicial policy of non-

interference with the Cabinet decisions made by the government or vis-á-vis

policy matters is no more res integra.

57. This Court in Sachidanand Pandey and Another v. State of West Bengal and

Others reported in (1987) 2 SCC 295 was faced with a question on whether

the court could judicially review the Cabinet decision of the State government

to lease out a part of the zoo land which was used for fodder cultivation, as a

burial ground, hospital etc. for animals for the construction of a five-star hotel.

While answering in the negative, it was held that the decision to lease out the

land was taken openly and after due application of mind to relevant

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 47 of 61 considerations including the ecology and the provision of alternative facilities

to the zoo. Furthermore, it was stated that in a scenario where the decision-

making of the government was alive to the various relevant considerations and

a conscious decision was arrived at after investing sufficient thought and

deliberation, it would not be appropriate for the court to interfere in the

absence of mala fides plaguing the process. However, if the relevant

considerations are proven to have been cast aside without due deliberation and

irrelevant considerations seem to bear significance, there would be every

reason for courts to interfere in public interest. Still, it was cautioned that it

would not be proper for the court to intervene to the extent that it attempts at

a laborious balancing of the relevant considerations. Instead of indulging in

that exercise, it was suggested that courts must rather resign themselves to

accepting the decision of the government/appropriate authority in that regard.

The relevant observations are reproduced thus:

“4. […] The question raised in the present case is whether the Government of West Bengal has shown such lack of awareness of the problem of environment in making an allotment of land for the construction of a five star hotel at the expense of the zoological garden that it warrants interference by this Court? Obviously, if the government is alive to the various considerations requiring thought and deliberation and has arrived at a conscious decision after taking them into account, it may not be for this Court to interfere in the absence of mala fides. On the other hand, if relevant considerations are not borne in mind and irrelevant considerations influence the decision, the court may interfere in order to prevent a likelihood of prejudice to the public. Whenever a problem of ecology is brought before the court, the court is bound to bear in mind Article 48-A of the

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 48 of 61 Constitution, the Directive Principle which enjoins that “the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country”, and Article 51-A(g) which proclaims it to be the fundamental duty of every citizen of India “to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures”. When the court is called upon to give effect to the Directive Principle and the fundamental duty, the court is not to shrug its shoulders and say that priorities are a matter of policy and so it is a matter for the policy-making authority. The least that the court may do is to examine whether appropriate considerations are borne in mind and irrelevancies excluded. In appropriate cases, the court may go further, but how much further must depend on the circumstances of the case. The court may always give necessary directions. However the court will not attempt to nicely balance relevant considerations. When the question involves the nice balancing of relevant considerations, the court may feel justified in resigning itself to acceptance of the decision of the concerned authority. We may now proceed to examine the facts of the present case.”

(Emphasis supplied)

58. In yet another decision of this Court in Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. and

Another reported in (2006) 12 SCC 331, it was held that in the absence of the

Cabinet decision being tainted or, vitiated for any palpable reason, the role of

the court in scrutinising the said policy decision, was limited. It was observed

thus:

“[…]There is nothing to show that the noting of the Minister was tainted in any manner or that the subsequent Cabinet decision was vitiated for any reason that could be gone into by the Court. In a sense, counsel for OMC and the State of Orissa are right in submitting that it was really a policy decision and the role of this Court in respect of such a policy decision and its scrutiny was limited and within the scope of that limited scrutiny, there was no justification in interfering

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 49 of 61 with the decision of the Government. Of course, as we have indicated earlier, it is for the Central Government to give its approval or not to give its approval to the proposal of the State Government. The Central Government is yet to take a decision. Since, we have not reached that stage, we are also not called upon to pronounce on it at this stage.”

(Emphasis supplied)

59. Subsequently, in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Chaudhari Ran Beer

Singh and Another reported in (2008) 5 SCC 550, this Court was concerned

with an issue wherein the State Government decided on the creation of a new

district by the name of ‘Baghpat’ and published a notification in that regard

The same was challenged by way of a writ petition. This Court had reiterated

that the scope of interference is very limited when policy decisions are

concerned since the government is better equipped to weigh and measure all

the relevant aspects that must be taken into consideration. So long as the

infringement of fundamental rights is not shown or evident, courts must

refrain from substituting its own judgment while assessing the propriety of the

government’s decisions which is made in exercise of its discretion or as a

matter of policy. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow:

“13. Cabinet's decision was taken nearly eight years back and appears to be operative. That being so there is no scope for directing reconsideration as was done in Ram Milan case, though learned counsel for the respondents prayed that such a direction should be given. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the State, in matters of policy decisions, the scope of interference is extremely limited. The policy decision must be left to the Government as it alone can decide which policy should be adopted after considering all relevant aspects from

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 50 of 61 different angles. In matter of policy decisions or exercise of discretion by the Government so long as the infringement of fundamental right is not shown, courts will have no occasion to interfere and the court will not and should not substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters. In assessing the propriety of a decision of the Government the court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible from that of the Government.”

(Emphasis supplied)

60. A conspectus of the aforementioned decisions would indicate that when an

executive Cabinet decision is the outcome of sound reasoning, an inclusive

consideration of all the relevant factors and based on recommendations, it

cannot be sought to be faulted with, especially through judicial intervention.

Assailing it in the absence of arbitrariness and merely because a ‘better’

alternate view could have been taken or was possible, would not suffice in

order to strike down such a decision or render it inoperative. The Ezong

Committee, while working on its recommendations for a boundary

demarcation between the two districts and while assessing the ground level

realities existing in the disputed areas, witnessed first-hand potential for

conflict if recognition is given to those villages which were situated in the

disputed area and therefore, suggested that recognition of those select villages

be kept in abeyance. The Deputy Commissioner, Peren also refrained from

commenting on the recognition of the respondent no. 1 village in view of the

subsisting boundary dispute. Therefore, on the advice of the Commissioner

and Home Commissioner, the Cabinet sought to keep the recognition of the

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 51 of 61 respondent no. 1 village in abeyance until the inter-district boundary dispute

was solved. The same cannot be faulted for being unreasonable or arbitrary

and based on no materials.

61. However, we have been apprised of the report of yet another Cabinet Sub-

Committee which was submitted before the Cabinet on 13.07.2021, which re-

examined the inter-district boundary dispute between the Peren and Dimapur

districts. The new committee had the occasion to consider or rather, re-

consider the recommendations made by the Ezong Committee back in 2002.

This Report of the Cabinet Sub-Committee came much after the impugned

decision dated 07.10.2015. Therefore, it cannot be said that the authorities

designated by the Cabinet sub-committee would have been unaware of the

unrecognised status of the respondent no. 1 village or their claim for

recognition while undertaking the site visits, assessing the ground realities and

performing their due diligence on the matter. However, what must be noted

with emphasis is that the Report of the Cabinet sub-committee while

mentioning the tussle which had ensued between the ‘Lamhai’ Village and

‘Kiyevi’ village due to their claims in the disputed area, is conspicuously silent

about the respondent no. 1 village and its conflict, if any, with another village

on account of it falling within the disputed boundary area of the two districts.

Therefore, while there may exist a dispute between the appellant and the

respondent no. 1 village regarding the ownership of land, what is evident is

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 52 of 61 that it does not seem to have anything to do with the boundary dispute which

is prevailing in the region.

62. Moreover, the Report of the Cabinet Sub-committee arrived at a conclusion

that the recommendations of the Ezong Committee were largely feasible and

practical albeit with a few exceptions and partial modifications. Under this

Report too, a ‘Sumi’ village was suggested to be placed under the Peren

District and a ‘Zeliangrong’ village was recommended to be kept in the

Dimapur District, purely for administrative convenience. The second

noteworthy aspect of the present Report was that the establishment and

recognition of new villages within a demarcated “buffer-zone/area” between

the Jalukie sub-division of the Peren District and Dhansiripar sub-division of

the Dimapur District was recommended to be considered only after the

boundary dispute was put to rest. The Report provided an Annexure under

which the list of villages, both recognised and unrecognised, falling within

such a “buffer-zone/area”, was detailed. A careful perusal of the same reveals

that the respondent no. 1 village does not fall within the said buffer-zone/area.

63. On a consideration of the recent report of the Cabinet sub-committee, which

comes as a relatively recent development, it can be seen that the stance of the

State blaming the inter-district boundary dispute for the non-recognition of the

respondent no. 1 deserves to be viewed strictly. When the Ezong Committee

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 53 of 61 Report was published in the year 2002, the respondent no. 1 village was not

inaugurated or established yet. Hence, there is every possibility that the State

authorities attributed the persisting inter-district dispute as a bona fide reason

for keeping the recognition of the respondent no. 1 village in abeyance, largely

due to the absence of clarity on the bounds of the respondent no. 1 village and

whether it fell within the disputed area or not. However, post the year 2021,

i.e., it was obvious and plain as day that the boundary dispute had nothing

whatsoever to do with the case of the respondent no. 1 village, especially since

it’s the case of the State themselves that the respondent no. 1 village is situated

approx. 3.7 kms from the buffer-zone/area.

64. The only reasonable ground or basis to further delay the recognition of the

respondent no. 1 was the objection raised by the appellant to the public notice

dated 13.10.2009. Still, this was also more than 15 years ago. We are equally

baffled and frustrated with the enormous reluctance that the State has

exhibited in considering the merits of the objections of the appellants and

putting an end to this issue.

65. Furthermore, the nature of the objections raised by the appellant are such that

they render it impossible for this court, which owing to its systemic

limitations, would not be well-equipped to understand the nuances of the rich

history of the land and the inter-tribal land related interactions which

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 54 of 61 transpired over the years, to authoritatively decide such claims. The State

authorities would be better suited to delve into the accuracy and correctness

of the claims put forth by the appellant and effectively decide the issue once

and for all. The courts face, for the lack of a better word, a real impediment in

deciding such complex disputed questions of fact which are involved in the

present litigation, especially at this stage. It would also be apposite to mention

that courts must also not bear the burden of what is a responsibility cast upon

the State and entrusted to executive decision-making.

66. The learned counsel for the State has also submitted in her counter-affidavit

that there might be objections by other parties, apart from those raised by the

appellants, which are germane to the issue of the respondent no. 1 village’s

recognition. It is clarified that any and all such objections may also be looked

into and decided upon expeditiously.

67. We appreciate that the State has refrained from adopting a completely

adversarial stand on the present issue but it must not be forgotten that the State

is still duty bound to carry out its role as an administrator and ensure that the

proper governance of its districts and villages do not suffer as a result of it

embracing such a non-confrontational role instead. In the face of conflict, the

State must delicately balance its function as a mediator but also as an authority

while seamlessly morphing into either role as per the demands of the situation

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 55 of 61 before itself. Ever since this Court has taken seisin of this matter, the State has

attempted to bring both parties together, at the same table, on multiple

occasions, in the hopes of an amicable settlement being reached. However,

every one of those attempts has remained unsuccessful in view of both parties

refusing to concede or arrive at a middle-ground. In such a scenario, the only

option that remains with the State is to consider the stand taken by both parties,

on merits, from an objective point of view and implement its decision without

hesitation. We say so, because the alternative – protracting the present impasse

and maintaining this limbo - is equally, if not more undesirable.

68. We have been informed by the State that certain basic facilities have been

made available to the respondent no. 1 and the same is tabulated below:

SL. NO NAME OF DEPT. SCHEME/FACILITIES REMARKS 1. Rural 77 job card holders The job holders are Development are there in Kakiho registered under K. village Xikeye village since 2012-13. 2. Education NIL There are at present no schools in the village. The nearest schools are: 1. GPS Ghowoto which is approx.. 2km away. 2. GHS Lhotavi village which is approx.. 3km away.

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 56 of 61 3. GMS at Amaluma which is approx.. 3-4 km away. 4. GMS at Doyapur which is approx.. 5 km away. 3. Social Welfare Anganwadi centre with Anganwadi worker/helper available. PMMVY/IGNPS are availed. 4. PHED The village is connected with water supply under Jal Jeevan Mission since 2022-2023. All 35 households have functional tap connection. Under SBM (Grameen) one plastic waste management unit has been provided during 2022-2023. 5. Electrical Electricity connected Single Point metering 6. Food and Civil There are 16 priority Supplies house hold ration card holders. 7. Agriculture NIL NIL 8. Horticulture NIL NIL 9. Medical NIL No PHC/CHC/SC In Kakiho (U/R). Nearest Sub Centre is at Pimla which is about 6-7 KM

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 57 of 61 from Kakiho (U/R) village. 10. Water Resource Balu Nallah MI Project – Surface Minor Irrigation (SMI) project under PMKSY “Har Khet Ko Pani”. 11. Forest NIL NIL 12. Fishery NIL NIL 13. Land Resources NIL NIL 14. Industries and NIL NIL Commerce

69. In the aforesaid context, the counsel for the appellant also submitted that the

respondent no. 1 currently being unrecognised, would still be entitled to avail

certain benefits which are due to them from their parent village, namely the

‘Khumishi A’ Village belonging to the Asuto sub-division of the Zunheboto

District. The aforesaid may be true in terms of availing benefits like obtaining

free tree saplings under the schemes of the Forest Department; free fruit

saplings from the Horticulture Department; free vegetable saplings, farming

machinery, tools etc. from the Agricultural Department; free saplings of cash

crops and local spices from the Land Resources Department and; access to

several food security schemes under the Food and Civil Supplies Department.

These benefits, not requiring the existence of permanent structures and being

easily transportable, can be availed by sharing in the proceeds of what is made

available to the parent village/neighbouring village(s) on a mutual consent

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 58 of 61 basis for the interim period. However, other essentials facilities like the

construction of roads, health infrastructure, school and other benefits that

would be made available upon the creation of a Village Development Board,

still remain denied to the respondent no. 1 village since they require a separate

and considerable amount of fund allocation on part of the State along with the

erection of permanent structures. It is keeping this in mind that we urge the

State authorities to take a final call on the issue of recognition of the

respondent no. 1 village with the utmost urgency and with strict adherence to

the procedure which has been contemplated for the said purpose. In the likely

event that a decision is arrived at to deny recognition to the respondent no. 1

village, it must be for reasons falling within the umbrella of the procedure laid

out therein and the State must be ready to clearly indicate what their next plan

of action would be, in that scenario.

70. Another set of arguments were canvassed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 as

regards the relationship between the fundamental rights, more particularly

Articles 14, 19 and 21 guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution and the

special status assigned to customary practices under Article 371A of the

Constitution. It was argued that customary practices protected under Article

371A cannot be utilised as a tool, rather a weapon, to abridge the fundamental

rights of the people of Nagaland and the villagers of the respondent no. 1

village. However, in the absence of the relevant provisions of the 1978 Act

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 59 of 61 and O.M.’s dated 22.03.1996 and 1.10.2005 respectively, themselves being

challenged as being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the

respondent no. 1 village and its inhabitants, there arises no occasion for us

delve into the said question of law. The grievance of the respondent, as we

understand, is primarily due to the delayed action, nay inaction, of the State

authorities in conclusively deciding their application for recognition and the

assignment of irrelevant reasons that perpetually kept their recognition in

abeyance. We believe the said grievance has been addressed by us,

appropriately and in great detail, in the preceding paragraphs.

E. CONCLUSION

71. In light of the aforesaid discussion, it cannot be said that the procedure

envisaged in the two O.M.’s dated 22.03.1996 and 01.10.2005 respectively,

was complied with in the present case. Furthermore, we are of the view that

the inter-district boundary dispute had no nexus whatsoever with the issue of

recognition of the respondent no. 1 village.

72. The decision of the High Court insofar as the observations made regarding the

compliance with the aforesaid two O.M.’s are concerned, is set aside solely

because the High Court while passing the impugned decision, was not alive to

the case of the appellant herein.

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 60 of 61

73. The State authorities are directed to re-issue a public notice regarding the

recognition of the respondent no. 1 village and exhaustively consider all the

objections which may be raised from every quarter, including that of the

appellant herein. A period of six months is provided to the State to complete

the said process and take a call on whether recognition must be granted to the

respondent no. 1 village or not. Non-adherence to this timeline would be

viewed strictly.

74. We treat this matter as part heard. The Registry shall notify this matter after a

period of six months before this very Bench (J.B. Pardiwala and R.

Mahadevan, JJ.) after obtaining appropriate orders from Honourable the Chief

Justice of India.

…………………………………J. (J.B. Pardiwala)

…………………………………J. (R. Mahadevan) New Delhi.

23rd May, 2025.

SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 Page 61 of 61