The jurisdiction of customary courts is limited when the same dispute is already pending in civil court, reinforcing the principle of legal jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. Zhimomi, Mr. Moa Imchen, learned Senior Government Advocate for the State respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. A. Zho, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 (R-5).

2. It is the case of the petitioner that Thetsumi Village and Chizami Village are neighboring villages in the Phek District of Nagaland. They are frequently engaged in boundary disputes. The petitioner is the Thetsumi Village Council. In connection with the dispute between the two villages several orders have been passed by the Administrative Officers of the District from 1915 to 1933. It is stated that amongst the various orders passed from time to time the order dated 19.04.1921 passed in Pol. Case12 of 1921 remains till date without any modification or cancellation.

3. It is contended by the petitioner that the dispute is still unresolved and that R-5 has repeatedly violated the Order dated 19.04.1921 in Pol. Case12 of 1921. It is further stated that apart from the demarcated boundary, because of familial relationships some persons/families from Chizami Village were permitted to cultivate lands within ‘Plot B’ of the petitioner Village. However, the permission granted to them to cultivate on the Thetsumi side cannot be translated into any change in the demarcated boundary/ownership.

4. Because of continuous attempts at encroachment to wrest the lands of Thetsumi Village, the petitioner Village had filed Civil Suit No. 17(3)/88 in the Court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (J) Phek which was later transferred to the court of District Judge Kohima. During the pendency of Civil Suit No. 17(3)/88 several attempts were made to amicably settle the dispute between the two villages. It is the petitioner’s submission that, the Chizami Village continued its attempts to encroach into the lands of Thetsumi Village. Orders were passed by the District Administration in relation to these disputes. In this regard, Order No. JDL/MISC-10/05 dated 31.05.2019 was issued directing the disputing parties not to hinder or stop either side from cultivation ‘if the same was being done earlier through traditional arrangements’. Taking note of the altercations between the two villages, by Order No. JDL/POL-4/78/401 dated 13.06.2022, the Deputy Commissioner, Phek directed both the parties to maintain status quo.

5. That after the status quo Order was issued, the R-5 again attempted to intrude into the land of petitioner Village. As such, the petitioner Village prevented them from doing so. At this juncture, the Chizami Village/R-5 approached the Additional Deputy Commissioner (ADC), Pfutsero and the petitioner received a summons dated 08.07.2022 requiring the petitioner’s attendance on 11.07.2022 before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pfutsero. On 11.07.2022, the ADC, Pfutsero and the SDO (Civil) Chizami concluded the meeting by warning the petitioner to cooperate with the Government or face sanctions. Subsequently, without any notice to the petitioner Village and in blatant violation of the procedures prescribed by law, the impugned Order No.ADC/PFRO/JUD-18/2020-21/215 dated 15.07.2022 was issued imposing a compensation amount of Rs. 12,25,050/- to be paid by the petitioner Village to Chizami Village/R-5 within 15 days from the date of its issue. The impugned Order also stated that failure to comply within the stipulated time ‘will lead to withholding of all Government Development funds indefinitely’.

6. Against this Order dated 15.07.2022, the petitioner had filed WP(C)/154/2022. By an Interim Order dated 28.07.2022, this Court had stayed the Order of the ADC, Pfutsero dated 15.07.2022.

7. At this jun