1. Recognition of a new village — dispute over ancestral land ownership — non-compliance with customary practices and administrative guidelines under the Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act, 1978. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
Back
Next 
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.
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.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- property law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Mandatory requirement of No Objection Certificate from ancestral village — protection of customary land laws under Article 371A — conflict between customary practices and fundamental rights. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 )
3. Customary land ownership and mutual consent are cardinal to village recognition — inter-district boundary disputes cannot indefinitely stall recognition if the village lies outside disputed buffer zones. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 )
4. Village recognition requires strict adherence to statutory conditions and customary practices, including the objective consideration of land-ownership objections raised during the mandatory public notice process. (Para 44 , 45 , 48 , 49 , 50 )
5. High Court's finding on procedural compliance set aside — State directed to re-issue public notice and decide on recognition after considering all objections within six months. (Para 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 )
6. How does Article 371A of the Constitution affect land ownership and village recognition in Nagaland?
Article 371A protects Naga customary law and land ownership, ensuring that Acts of Parliament regarding these matters do not apply unless the State Legislative Assembly resolves otherwise. Village recognition must therefore align with these customary practices and statutory requirements. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 )
7. What are the essential criteria for the recognition of a new village in Nagaland?
Recognition requires proof of lawful land ownership or transfer, adherence to customary practices, and obtaining No Objection Certificates from parent and neighbouring villages, alongside a public notice process to resolve objections. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 )
8. What is the legal significance of objections raised during the public notice process for village recognition?
Public notices provide a transparent platform for interested parties to raise objections. The State must objectively consider these objections on their merits to prevent future conflicts and ensure peaceful co-existence between villages. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 )
9. To what extent can courts interfere with executive Cabinet decisions regarding policy matters?
Courts generally refrain from substituting their judgment for executive decisions unless they are arbitrary, capricious, mala fide, or illegal. However, they may intervene if relevant considerations were ignored or irrelevant ones were prioritized. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 )
10. Can an inter-district boundary dispute be a valid ground to keep village recognition in abeyance?
While such disputes may justify temporary delays for sensitivity, they cannot be used as a permanent basis for abeyance if the village is situated outside the actual disputed buffer zone. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 )
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
(General Administration Branch)
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
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 inhabi
