SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 903

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Old Jalukai Village Council – Appellant
Versus
Kakiho Village and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. of 2025 [Arising Out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 9897 of 2016]
Decided On : 23-05-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Parthiv K. Goswami, Sr. Adv. Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR Ms. Atiga Singh, Adv. Ms. Apurva Sachdev, Adv. Mr. Piyush Vyas, Adv. Ms. Purvat Wali, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Jaiswal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Renuka Sahu, AOR Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv. Mr. K.N. Balgopal, Sr. Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv.

Recognition of villages in Nagaland requires adherence to established customary practices, necessitating 'No Objection Certificates' and compliance with the prescribed procedures outlined in the relevant Office Memoranda.

Headnote:(A) Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act, 1978 - Special Provisions under Article 371A of the Constitution - The High Court directed State authorities to recognize Kakiho village, ruling that all formalities for recognition were completed, despite inter-district boundary dispute. (Paras 50, 71, 73)

(B) Customary Practices - Importance of traditional customs in land ownership and recognition processes; necessity of obtaining 'No Objection Certificate' from ancestral or neighboring villages per Office Memoranda dated 22.03.1996 and 01.10.2005. (Paras 3, 4, 15, 46)

(C) Judicial Review - Courts refrain from intervening in executive decisions absent clear arbitrariness or illegality; matters of social custom and tribal identity must be handled cautiously. (Paras 56, 60)

Facts of the case:
Appeal arose from a High Court ruling directing village recognition against the backdrop of land disputes and inter-district boundary issues between the Sumi and Zeliangrong tribes. Appellant alleged new establishment over ancestral land without necessary consent. Respondent asserted compliance with procedural requirements for village recognition.

Findings of Court:
High Court’s directions affirmed but the lack of consideration for objections from the appellant noted; State to reassess recognition process.

Issues: Did the respondent village fulfill recognition criteria despite the appellant’s objections? Was the inter-district dispute a valid reason to delay recognition?

Ratio Decidendi: Court mandated adherence to process for recognition with stringent timelines while emphasizing both parties' rights and ensuring compliance with procedural customs.

Result: Recognition process reassessed, with six months provided for completion, directing consideration of all objections.

Table of Content
1. issue of village recognition parameters and compliance with customary laws. (Para 1)
2. recognition process for new villages in nagaland. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. arguments on recognition of kakiho village. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
4. respondents defend recognition against objections. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
5. state supports recognition process after boundary resolution. (Para 34)
6. discussion on boundary dispute implications for recognition. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61)
7. recommendations for administrative action by the state. (Para 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70)
8. court mandates recognition process for kakiho village. (Para 71 , 72 , 73)

JUDGMENT :

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

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

INDEX

(A)

FACTUAL MATRIX

(B)

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

(i) Submissions on behalf of the appellant

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

(iii) Submissions on behalf of the State

(C)

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

(D)

ANALYSIS

(i) Whether all the necessary conditions/criteria for the issuance of formal orders of recognition as per the O.M. dated 22.03.1996 and 01.10.2005 respectively were fulfilled?

(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?

(E)

CONCLUSION

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 orders 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 [A. NSHOGA, TRADITIONAL NAGA VILLAGE SYSTEM AND ITS TRANSFORMATION 87 (Anshah Publishing House 2009)] 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 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 [LANUSASHI LONGKUMER ET. AL., STATUS OF ADIVASIS/INDIGENOUS PEOPLES LAND SERIES - 6: NAGALAND 20 (Aakar Books 2012)] 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

(Gen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top