IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Dobhasi Court (DBs) does not have the appellate jurisdiction to decide the appeal filed against the decision of the Village Council, as per the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, 1937.

JUDGMENT :

BUDI HABUNG, J.

1. Heard Mr. T. Khezhie, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. E. Thiba Phom, learned Government Advocate for the State-respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Ms. Khriekethonuo, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

2. This Civil Revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution read with Rule 32 of the Rules for Administration of Justice (for short Rules) and Police in Nagaland, 1937 and Section 115 of CPC assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the Dobashi Court (DBs in short), Chiephobozou, Kohima in Pol Case No. 01/2021 and paragraph 4 of the order dated 09.10.2019 passed by the Nerhema Village Council, Kohima.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that there was a partition of an ancestral clan’s property between the family of the petitioner and the private respondent No. 4. The said property is located at Tephrieba under Nerhema Village, Kohima. The members of the family unanimously agreed the said partition/division of the clan’s property. Accordingly, the partition agreement was reduced into writing on 29.11.2002 (Annexure-3). As per the said agreement, amongst other, it was decided that the upper portion of the landed property between the Bawe road till the road leading to the bungalow shall be given to Neizelhou, who was the father of the petitioner. The agreement further expressly provided that “in order to avoid any dispute, the elders in the clan has appended their signature” accordingly, the elders of the clan had put their signatures in the agreement.

4. The said partition agreement is not in dispute. But the private respondent and his brothers started encroaching and excavating over the petitioner’s land at Tephrieba when the petitioner was out in tour. The act of private respondent was illegal and in violation of the said partition agreement dated 20.09.2019. Hence, the wife of the petitioner objected and confronted the private respondent. And on such confrontation, the private respondent had physically assaulted the wife of the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Nerhema Village Council, Kohima. After hearing the parties, the Nerhema Village Council then had decided the case on 09.10.2019. Considering the evidences and basing on the family property partition agreement executed on 29.11.2002, the land in question was decided in favour of the petitioner by the Village Council, firmly stating that the said agreement was binding upon the parties. Thus, the title of the landed property in question was decided in favour of the petitioner.

5. However, in the said decision of the land encroachment case, the Village Council had also passed an additional decision at paragraph-4. The additional decision in Para-4 of the said order read as follows:

“(4) while deciding the instant case, the issue of Usouand Merhieso was also raised. It is decided that, henceforth, the parties collectively should use as Merhieso as their surname.”

This additional decision at Para-4 according to the petitioner is not at all connected with the issue of land encroachment case and it was never raised by the petitioner before the Village Council.

6. Being aggrieved by the above decision of the village council in so far as Para-4 is concerned, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (for short ADC), Chiephobozou, Kohima on 18.02.2021. The contention of the petitioner before the ADC was that he had approached the village council for adjudication of the land dispute between the petitioner and the private respondent No. 4. However, the Village Council while deciding the land in question in his favour had arbitrarily added Para-4 in their decision, the issue which is unconnected with the land dispute and directed the petitioner to use ‘Merhieso’ as his surname as opposed to his own surname ‘Usou’. It was further contended that the decision on use of surname has no relevance to the land dispute