P K. Musahary, J.

1. Heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Wati Jamir, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. L S Jamir, learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland and Mr. Taka Masa, learned Counsel, appearing for Respondent No. 6.

2. The Petitioner village council, represented by its acting Chairman, challenges the order dated 18.6.2009 passed by the Political Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Peren and order dated 28.8.2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Peren whereby the Petitioner village has been directed to dismantle all the makeshift in the jhum kheti within two months and leave the place. The facts leading to passing of the aforesaid impugned orders are narrated hereunder:

3. The Petitioner is a traditional village established sometime in the 18th Century. They belong to a particular Naga tribe. Inter-tribe conflict and warfare was prevalent amongst them in the older days. The Petitioner village was subjected to constant warfare from the neighbouring villages. They could not resist the warring neighbour tribe and as a result the Petitioner-village had to leave the traditional village for a secured place. They left/abandoned the traditional village under the care of Peren Village with condition that they would take over the village again after their return. The inmates of the Petitioner village returned and with the permission of Peren Village they established the new Peren Village in 1961. The Petitioner's case is that in the year 1999 the Petitioner and the Peren Village Council had a joint meeting and it was agreed between the parties to establish the present Petitioner's village. However, the dispute arose in the year 2001 when the Petitioner started clearing the jungle for the establishment of their own village at the ancestral land. Respondent No. 6 lodged a complaint before the ADC, Peren alleging that the Petitioner was encroaching his land. The Petitioner also submitted their reply to the ADC in response to the allegation of Respondent-authorities. During the pendency of the aforesaid complaint, on 9.7.2001 a memorandum of understanding (MOU in short) was signed between the Petitioner and the Respondent-authorities at the initiation of a local arbitrator wherein it was agreed that the Respondent-6 would withdraw the complaint lodged before the ADC so as to settle the dispute as per the old tradition and custom. Accordingly, by an order dated 23.7.2001, the ADC Peren dropped the complaint lodged by the Respondent No. 6. Although the said complaint of the Respondent No. 6 was withdrawn, no steps were taken by the Respondent-authorities as well as the arbitrator to settle the dispute in terms of the MOU. The Petitioner on several occasions requested the Respondent No. 6 to have a joint meeting to settle the dispute but he did not turn up. Then on 15.3.2004 the Petitioner submitted a letter dated 14.3.2004 to the Deputy Commissioner requesting him to preserve and protect their ancestral land till an MOU is signed between the parties. Thereafter the Petitioner requested the Respondent No. 6 on several occasions to settle the dispute but it yielded no response. The Petitioner submitted a letter to the Zeliangrong Baudi (HOHO), an Apex statutory body recognized under the customary law to settle the dispute as per customary practices. On receipt of the said letter, the Zeliangrong Baudi (HOHO), summoned the Respondent No. 6 on several occasions. As the Respondent No. 6 did not turn up, the HOHO on 25.11.2005 rendered a decision declaring the Petitioner as the rightful owner of the land in dispute. Subsequently, on 6.6.2006 an MOU was executed between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 6 initiated by an arbitrator incorporating certain terms and condition. The Respondent No. 6 failed to abide by and implement the said MOU and neglected to settle the dispute as per the agreed terms and condition. As a result, the Petitioner had to withdraw the said MOU and submitted a