Holding

The Supreme Court held that the procedural requirements under the 1996 and 2005 Office Memoranda were not complied with and that the inter‑district boundary dispute has no relevance to the recognition of the village, directing the State to re‑issue a public notice and decide on recognition within six months.

Summary

The Old Jalukai Village Council (appellant) claimed that the Kakiho Village (respondent No.1) was being recognized on land that ancestrally belonged to it, and it had objected to the public notice issued in 2009. The State of Nagaland had proceeded with recognition despite the objection, citing an inter‑district boundary dispute between Peren and Dimapur districts as a reason to keep the recognition in abeyance. The Supreme Court examined whether the procedural requirements of the 1996 and 2005 Office Memoranda—especially the need for a No‑Objection Certificate and proper consideration of objections—were satisfied, and whether the boundary dispute was a valid ground to delay recognition. The Court found that the State had not fully complied with the procedural safeguards and that the boundary dispute bore no nexus to the recognition issue. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s findings, directed the State to re‑issue a public notice, consider all objections, and decide on recognition within six months. The matter was listed as part‑heard for further compliance.

Issues considered

Whether the respondent village fulfilled all conditions and criteria for issuance of formal recognition orders as per the Office Memoranda dated 22.03.1996 and 01.10.2005, particularly in view of the appellant's objections to the public notice.
Whether the existence of an inter‑district boundary dispute constitutes a valid reason to keep the recognition of the respondent village in abeyance.

Legislation cited

Constitutional Amendment Act of 1962
Constitution of Indias. Art. 14, s. Art. 19, s. Art. 21, s. Art. 371A
Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act, 1978s. 26, s. 3

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether it could be said that the respondent no.1-village had fulfilled all the necessary conditions/criteria for the issuance of formal order(s) of recognition as per the O.M.s dated 22.03.1996 and 01.10.2005 respectively, especially in light of the fact that the appellant Public Notice dated 13.10.2009; 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? Headnotes† Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act, 1978 – s.3– In Nagaland, for the

Subjects

State of NagalandEstablishment of a new villageLand ancestrally belonging to another villageCustomsPrevailing customNo Objection CertificateParent villageAncestral villageKakiho VillageOld Jalukai Village CouncilVillage establishmentVillage recognitionNagasNaga customary law and procedureOwnership and transfer of landPublic Noticeinter-district boundary disputeKohimaPerenDimapurEzong Committee ReportSumi tribeZeliangrong tribeCabinet decisionsBoundary disputeCustomary practicesEnvironment protection

Judgment

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2658 : 2025 INSC 766

Old Jalukai Village Council
v.
Kakiho Village & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 7380 of 2025)
23 May 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether it could be said that the respondent no.1-village had
fulfilled all the necessary conditions/criteria for the issuance of
formal order(s) of recognition as per the O.M.s dated 22.03.1996
and 01.10.2005 respectively, especially in light of the fact that
the appellant had raised objections to the Public Notice dated
13.10.2009; 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?

Headnotes†
Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act, 1978 – s.3– In
Nagaland, for the establishment of a new village on a land
which ancestrally belongs to another village, the prevailing
custom requires a ‘No Objection Certificate’ of the parent/
ancestral village – Said custom is recognized in the O.M. dated
22.03.1996 – Government of Nagaland issued another O.M. dated
01.10.2005 which introduced an additional criteria/condition
in the process of village recognition i.e., the requirement of a
public notice providing a 30 day period to the public to register
their objections, if any, regarding the specific village which is
sought to be recognised – Division Bench of the High Court
affirmed the judgment of the Single Judge directing the State
authorities to take steps for the issuance of formal order(s) for
the recognition of the respondent no. 1 village – Whether all the
necessary conditions/criteria for the issuance of formal order(s)
of recognition of the respondent no.1-village as per the O.M.’s
dated 22.03.1996 and 01.10.2005 respectively were fulfilled:
Held: 1.1 It is the bounden duty of the State and its relevant
authorities to adequately and appropriately consider any and all
such objections which may be raised by the interested parties in
response to the public notice issued by them, provided that they
are lodged within the stipulated time-period – Otherwise, the very
object of issuing a public notice would be vitiated. [Para 49]
* Author
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2659

Old Jalukai Village Council v. Kakiho Village & Ors.

1.2 In the present case, the said public notice was issued on
13.10.2009 and vide communication dated 16.10.2009, the
appellant had raised its objections to the recognition of the
respondent no. 1 village by contending that the respondent no. 1
village is in fact sought to be established on their land – The
objection is said to have also been published in a local daily on
18.10.2009 – The Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur
vide its letter dated 08.11.2009 had directed the appellant to furnish
more comprehensive details along with the relevant boundaries and
records to incidate as to how the respondent no. 1 village would
fall within their land – The authorities further stipulated that, if the
same is not provided within a period of 7 days, their objection
dated 16.10.2009 would stand nullified. [Para 49]
1.3 On the ensuing day i.e., on 09.11.2009, the appellant sent
a reply providing details supporting their claim to the Deputy
Commissioner, Dimapur – It is unclear as to what extent the
aforesaid communication made by the appellant was considered
by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur before additional steps were
taken to forward the proposal for recognition of the respondent
no. 1 village to the government. [Para 49]
1.4 The State of Nagaland has not made a single averment
regarding the merits of the claim made by the appellant over the
land in which the respondent no. 1 village is situated – It is not
the case of the State of Nagaland that the claims made by the
appellant are absolutely baseless and devoid of merit as well –
Therefore, it cannot be contended, both by the State of Nagaland
and by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively, that the conditions/
criteria laid down in the two O.M.’s, especially the latter O.M. dated
01.10.2005, were fulfilled in the present case. [Para 49]
1.5 The procedure envisaged in the two O.M.’s dated 22.03.1996
and 01.10.2005 respectively, was not complied with in the present
case – Furthermore, the inter-district boundary dispute had no
nexus whatsoever with the issue of recognition of the respondent
no. 1 village – The decision of the High Court insofar as the
observations made regarding the compliance with the aforesaid
two O.M.’s are concerned, is set aside solely because the High
Court while passing the impugned decision, was not alive to the
case of the appellant herein. [Para 72]
1.6 State authorities to re-issue a public notice regarding the
recognition of the respondent no. 1 village and exhaustively
consider all the objections which may be raised from every quarter,
2660 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

including that of the appellant herein – A period of six months is
provided to the State to complete the said process and take a call
on whether recognition must be granted to the respondent no. 1
village or not. [Para 73]

Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act, 1978 – 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 – The demarcation of the inter-district boundary
between the districts of Kohima (where the appellant village is
located) and Dimapur (where the respondent village is allegedly
located) and its nexus with the recognition of village(s) was
first brought to the fore by the Ezong Committee Report –
The broad consensus amongst the concerned parties was to
place all the villages affiliated with the ‘Sumi’ tribe (to which
respondent no. 1 village is affiliated) in the Dimapur District
and those affiliated to the ‘Zeliangrong’ tribe (to which the
appellant belongs) under the Kohima district (now Peren):
Held: The inter-district boundary dispute had no nexus whatsoever
with the issue of recognition of the respondent no. 1 village – On
a consideration of the recent report of the Cabinet sub-committee,
which comes as a relatively recent development, the stance
of the State blaming the inter-district boundary dispute for the
non-recognition of the respondent no. 1 deserves to be viewed
strictly – When the Ezong Committee Report was published in the
year 2002, the respondent no. 1 village was not inaugurated or
established yet – Hence, there is every possibility that the State
authorities attributed the persisting inter-district dispute as a bona
fide reason for keeping the recognition of the respondent no. 1
village in abeyance, largely due to the absence of clarity on the
bounds of the respondent no. 1 village and whether it fell within
the disputed area or not – However, post the year 2021, i.e., it
was obvious that the boundary dispute had nothing whatsoever to
do with the case of the respondent no. 1 village, especially since
it’s the case of the State themselves that the respondent no. 1
village is situated approx. 3.7 kms from the buffer-zone/area – State
authorities to take a final call on the issue of recognition of the
respondent no. 1 village with the utmost urgency and with strict
adherence to the procedure. [Paras 63, 69, 72]
Judicial Review – Cabinet decisions – Scope, stated.
[Paras 56-60]
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2661

Old Jalukai Village Council v. Kakiho Village & Ors.

Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act, 1978 – s.3 – ‘village’ –
Conditions to be fulfilled, to be recognised as a village.
[Paras 43, 44]

Case Law Cited
PUCL & Anr. v. State of Nagaland and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3607
of 2016); Sachidanand Pandey and Another v. State of West Bengal
and Others [1987] 2 SCR 223 : (1987) 2 SCC 295; Indian Charge
Chrome Ltd. and Another [2006] Supp. 10 SCR 640 : (2006) 12 SCC
331; State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Chaudhari Ran Beer Singh
and Another [2008] 4 SCR 610 : (2008) 5 SCC 550 – referred to.
Mangyang Lima v. State of Nagaland and Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine
Gau 3494; Sabeituo Mechulho and Ors v. State of Nagaland and
Ors., 2011 SCC OnLine Gau 592 – referred to.

Books and Periodicals Cited
A. Nshoga, Traditional Naga Village System and its Transformation
87 (Anshah Publishing House 2009); Lanusashi Longkumer et. al.,
Status of Adivasis/Indigenous Peoples Land Series – 6: Nagaland
20 (Aakar Books 2012).

List of Acts
Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act, 1978; Constitutional
Amendment Act of 1962; Constitution of India.

List of Keywords
State of Nagaland; Establishment of a new village; Land ancestrally
belonging to another village; Customs; Prevailing custom; ‘No
Objection Certificate’; Parent village; Ancestral village; Kakiho
Village; Old Jalukai Village Council; Village establishment; Village
recognition; Nagas; Naga customary law and procedure; Ownership
and transfer of land; Public Notice; “inter-district boundary dispute”;
Kohima; Peren; Dimapur; Ezong Committee Report; Sumi tribe;
Zeliangrong tribe; Village; Cabinet decisions; Boundary dispute;
Customary practices; Environment protection.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7380 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.10.2015 of the Gauhati
High Court in WA No. 6 of 2015
2662 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Parthiv K. Goswami, Sr. Adv., Ms. Diksha Rai, Ms. Atiga Singh, Ms.
Apurva Sachdev, Piyush Vyas, Ms. Purvat Wali, Abhishek Jaiswal.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Ms. Renuka Sahu, Vinnoka Achumi, Shivam Singh, Ms. K. Enatoli
Sema, Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Amit Kumar Singh, Ms. Chubalemla
Chang, Prang Newmai.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

J.B. Pardiwala, J.

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

INDEX*

A. FACTUAL MATRIX ................................................................ 2
B. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES ....................................... 18
i. Submissions on behalf of the appellant ..................... 18
ii. Submissions on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 23
iii. Submissions on behalf of the State ............................ 29
C. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION .......................................... 32
D. ANALYSIS ............................................................................. 33
i. Whether all the necessary conditions/criteria for the
issuance of formal order(s) of recognition as per the
O.M.’s dated 22.03.1996 and 01.10.2005 respectively
were fulfilled? ................................................................... 33
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? ........................... 42
E. CONCLUSION ....................................................................... 60

* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2663

Old Jalukai Village Council v. Kakiho Village & Ors.

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 order(s)
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 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 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:

1 A. Nshoga, Traditional Naga Village System and its Transformation 87 (Anshah Publishing House 2009)
2 Lanusashi Longkumer et. al., Status of Adivasis/Indigenous Peoples Land Series – 6: Nagaland 20
(Aakar Books 2012).
2664 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

“ 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
inhabitants only.
(iv) A new village constituted by members of more than
one village should obtain from the Village Council
Chairman a ‘No Objection Certificate’ of the parent
village indicating that the boundaries of the new
village.
(v) A new village constituted by members of more
than one village in a different location but within
the ancestral land of the parent village, should
obtain from the Village Council Chairman of the
parent village a ‘No Objection Certificate’ indicating
the boundaries of the new village. In cases where
exact boundary demarcations cannot be defined
due to scatter of pockets of land, the Village Council
Chairman and all the GBs of the parent village
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2665

Old Jalukai Village Council v. Kakiho Village & Ors.

should determine the nature of boundaries with the
new village on any permanent basis acceptable to
both the villages.
(vi) In cases where GBs are appointed and allowed to
function as the constitutional head of the village in
matters of administration of the village land, the GBs
concerned should attest their signatures in the ‘No
Objection Certificate’ jointly with the Village Council
Chairman.
(vii) The entire area of the newly established village
should be surveyed jointly by competent staff of
Land Records & Survey and civil administration to
clearly demarcate and map the village territory and
also record the area in hectares.
(viii) A new village on completion of the process of boundary
demarcations with the neighbouring villages/parent
village and also on completion of survey as required
under (vii) given below, should erect pillars at its
own expenses in the presence of competent staff
as requisitioned under the same point.
(ix) The following certificates/documents are required to
accompany the proposal:
(a) Clearance from Forest Department issued by an
officer not below the rank of DFO.
(b) Judicial clearance from a Class-I Magistrate.
(c) ‘No Objection Certificate’ from neighbouring
village(s) duly countersigned by an Administrative
Officer.
(x) Administrative approval should be from an officer not
below the rank of SDO(C).
(xi) No approval is required from extra-constitutional body
like students’ union, tribal hoho(s).
Sd/- L. COLNEY
Addl. Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland”
(Emphasis supplied)
2666 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Condition (v) of the aforesaid O.M. clearly lays down that if a new
village is constituted by the members of more than one village, in a
different location which is within the ancestral land of another parent
village, then the new village must obtain a ‘No Objection Certificate’
from the Village Council Chairman of the said parent village while
also indicating the boundaries of the new village.
5. In the meantime, there arose a boundary dispute between the districts
of Kohima (where the appellant village is located) and Dimapur
(where the respondent village is allegedly located). On 26.09.2000,
a Committee (hereinafter, called the “Ezong Committee”) was
constituted by the Government of Nagaland to work out and submit
their recommendations as regards the demarcation of the inter-
district boundary between the aforesaid two districts, with particular
reference to the boundary between the Dhansiripar sub-division
of the Dimapur District and the Jalukai sub-division of the Kohima
District. A new district called Peren District has since been carved out
of Kohima District and the Jalukai sub-division now falls under the
Peren District. On 28.05.2002, the Ezong Committee submitted its
report to the Additional Chief Secretary & Commissioner of Nagaland.
The Committee decided to give due consideration in placing the
villages associated with the ‘Sumi’ tribe under the Dimapur District
and those associated with the ‘Zeliangrong’ tribe under the Kohima
district as far as conveniently practicable and wherever the same
was not possible, the boundary was to be demarcated strictly in
accordance with administrative convenience. The Committee also
suggested that it would be desirable for the State Government to
consider the issue of recognition of new villages existing in the
disputed areas only after the boundary demarcation between the
two districts was finalized.
6. The Government of Nagaland issued one another Office Memorandum
dated 01.10.2005 which introduced an additional criteria/condition in
the process of village recognition i.e., the requirement of a public notice
providing a 30 day period to the public to register their objections, if
any, regarding the specific village which is sought to be recognised.
This notice which would also indicate the area of land/boundary of
the new village was to be issued by the Deputy Commissioner of
the concerned district. The authorities were specifically implored to
strictly abide by and adhere to the cumulative conditions mentioned
in the O.M. dated 22.03.1996 and the O.M. dated 01.10.2005, the
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2667

Old Jalukai Village Council v. Kakiho Village & Ors.

failure of which would result in the rejection of the application of village
recognition. The aforesaid O.M. dated 01.10.2005 is reproduced
hereinbelow:

“ Government of Nagaland
Home Department
General Administration Branch-I
No. GAB-1/COM/108/2005
Dated Kohima, the 1st October, 2005
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Criteria/ conditions for recognition of new villages
in Nagaland
In addition to the instructions contained in this Department’s
O.M. No.GA-12-13/74 dtd. 22/03/96 on the above
mentioned subject, all cases relating to recognition of new
villages in Nagaland, shall henceforth, with immediate
effect, require a public notice to be issued by the Deputy
Commissioner of the District concerned. The notice shall
indicate the area of land/boundary of the village proposed
for recognition, giving 30(thirty) days’ time for objection,
if any, to be filed.
2. All other conditions/ criteria laid down in the O.M. under
reference shall remain unchanged.
3. It is hereby impressed on all concerned that any proposal
for recognition of village in Nagaland which does not comply
with the prescribed conditions shall be rejected. District
Administration shall therefore ensure strict adherence to
these conditions/criteria while recommending cases to
the Government.
Sd/-
Banuo Z. Jamir
Principal Secretary to the Government of Nagaland”
(Emphasis supplied)

7. On 01.09.2007, the respondent no. 2, who is the Head Gaobura-
cum-Council Chairman of the respondent no. 1 village, had allegedly
2668 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

established the respondent no.1 village which is affiliated to the
‘Sumi’ tribe. While it is the case of the appellant that the said village
falls within the bounds of their ancestral land, the respondent nos.
1 and 2 respectively instead contend that their village falls within
another district altogether i.e., the Dhansiripar sub-division of the
Dimapur District. With a view to initiate the process of recognition,
on 24.03.2009, the respondent no. 2 submitted an application
requesting the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur to depute a Survey
Team and conduct a spot verification of the respondent no. 1 village.
On 10.09.2009, the spot verification report was submitted which
revealed that the respondent no. 1 village, admeasuring 1012 Acres,
with a population of 300 people and 57 households, falls under
the Dhansiripar sub-division of the Dimapur district. It was said to
be bounded by Ghowoto Village in the North, K. Xekiye Village in
the South, the Pathor river/Ballu Nallah in the East and K. Xekiye
Village in the West. The report also observed that the respondent
no. 1 village has no inter-boundary dispute at least in so far as the
neighbouring villages were concerned.
8. In order to expedite the recognition of the respondent no. 1
village, on 21.09.2009, the respondent no. 2 submitted yet another
representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur inter-alia stating
that the respondent no. 1 village has been established with his own
privately purchased land and that ‘No Objection Certificates’ were
obtained from their parental village i.e. Khumishi ‘A’ Village under the
Zunheboto District and from all the villages currently neighbouring the
respondent no. 1 village i.e. Ghowoto Village and K. Xekiye Village.
Having complied with the conditions laid down in the O.M. dated
22.02.1996, it was requested that their application be forwarded
to the appropriate higher authorities with a recommendation that
the respondent no. 1 village be recognised. Soon thereafter, on
30.09.2009, the local authorities had also submitted other relevant
documents to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur which included
the ‘No Objection Certificates’ from the Judicial Magistrate and the
Forest Department.
9. On 13.10.2009, whilst kickstarting the last leg of the village recognition
process and in accordance with the O.M. dated 01.10.2005, the
Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur published a public notice inviting
claims/objections, if any, as regards the recognition of the respondent
no. 1 village within a period of 30 days. The notice was also published
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2669

Old Jalukai Village Council v. Kakiho Village & Ors.

in a local daily, “The Nagaland Post”, on the very next day. On
16.10.2009, i.e., within two days of the public notice, the appellant
raised an objection to the proposal for granting recognition to the
respondent no. 1 village with the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur,
predominantly for the reason that it is sought to be established on
the land ancestrally belonging to them. The objection is also said
to have been published in a local daily i.e., “The Morung Express”
on 19.10.2009. Vide communication dated 08.11.2009, the Deputy
Commissioner, Dimapur, directed the appellant to provide additional
and complete information as to how the respondent no. 1 village falls
within their land and the same was to be furnished within a period of
7 days, failing which their objection would be nullified. Immediately
on the ensuing day, i.e., on 09.11.2009, the appellant addressed
a letter providing several pertinent information along with some
historical context as to how the respondent no. 1 village indeed fell
within their ancestral land.
10. Despite the objections raised by the appellant herein, on 18.11.2009,
the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, submitted its recommendation for
the recognition of the respondent no. 1 village under the Dhansiripar
sub-division of the Dimapur District to the Commissioner, Nagaland.
Pursuant to the above, a Cabinet meeting was held on 14.12.2011
to deliberate on the issue of recognition of villages. The State
Cabinet had approved the proposal of the Home Department for the
recognition of a total of 34 villages listed therein. However, in so far
as the recognition of those villages listed between Sl. Nos. 19 to
24 were concerned, the order of recognition was to be issued only
after a joint verification was conducted by the Deputy Commissioners
of Peren and Dimapur respectively. It is pertinent to note that the
respondent no. 1 village featured at Sl. No. 23 in the said list.
11. In compliance with the Cabinet decision aforementioned, a joint
verification is said to have been conducted on 08.03.2012. Thereafter,
on 26.07.2012, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur forwarded the
joint verification report to the Commissioner, Nagaland specifically
indicating that both the joint verification report and the map of the
Dimapur District reveals that the respondent no. 1 village is situated
within the Dhansiripar sub-division of the Dimapur District. However,
on the contrary, vide communication dated 23.08.2012, the Deputy
Commissioner, Peren, had refrained from offering any conclusive
opinion as regards the recognition of the respondent no. 1 stating that
2670 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

“the office of the D.C. Peren has no further comments for recognition
of the above two villages until the boundary dispute between the two
districts is settled”. Alluding to the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner,
Peren, the Office of the Commissioner, Nagaland also addressed a
letter dated 05.11.2012 to the Home Commissioner suggesting that
the recognition of two villages, i.e. the A.K. Industrial Village and the
respondent no. 1 village, be kept in abeyance until the inter-district
boundary dispute is resolved since the grant of recognition would
motivate other villages in the disputed areas to also seek recognition
and cause serious unrest at the ground level.
12. To address this issue effectively, a consultation meeting was held on
10.06.2013 under the auspices of the Home Ministry which included
the Commissioner, Nagaland, the Deputy Commissioner, Peren and
the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, amongst others, regarding the
inter-district boundary dispute between the Peren and Dimapur
districts. It was decided that the boundary demarcation which was
recommended by the Ezong Committee in the year 2002 would be
notified for the purpose of inviting claims/objections from the public
after due approval from the Cabinet. It was further reiterated that,
notwithstanding the Cabinet decision to order recognition subject
to joint verification having been completed, the recognition of the
respondent no. 1 village would stand deferred. Consequently, the
Cabinet accorded its approval for the publication of the Ezong
Committee report vide O.M. dated 05.09.2013 and the same was
published in all the local dailies on 20.09.2013. It is averred by
the State of Nagaland that several objections were received from
different Hohos, Village Councils, Gaobura’s etc. in response to the
publication of the Ezong Committee report and that the issue had
further been referred to the district administration of Dimapur for an
update on the ground reality.
13. Notwithstanding the above Cabinet decision, on 05.03.2014, the
Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) (Civil) of the Dhansiripar sub-division
is said to have issued a certificate of administrative approval for the
recognition of the respondent no. 1 village while also recording that
there were no objections against the recognition of the said village
from any quarter.
14. However, still having witnessed abysmal progress as regards its
recognition, on 21.04.2014, the respondent no. 1 village along with
the respondent no. 2 filed a Writ Petition being W.P.(C) No. 65(K)
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2671

Old Jalukai Village Council v. Kakiho Village & Ors.

of 2014 before the High Court of Gauhati, Kohima Bench inter-alia
seeking a writ of mandamus directing the State government to take
necessary steps for its recognition. Vide judgment and order dated
21.04.2015, the Single Judge of the High Court directed the State to
take appropriate steps for the purpose of issuing formal order(s) for
the recognition of the respondent no. 1 within a period of 3 months.
The High Court’s reasoning was three-fold: –
(i) First, that all the criteria/conditions mentioned in the O.M.’s dated
22.03.1996 and 01.10.2005 respectively, for the recognition of
the respondent no. 1 village, were complied with. ‘No objection
certificates’ were also issued by the neighbouring villages
i.e., Ghowoto Village on 16.08.2007 and K. Xekiye Village on
30.11.2007 respectively. The public notice published in the
newspaper also yielded no objection from any quarter. The
Cabinet had then given its approval for recognition subject to a
joint verification being conducted by the Deputy Commissioners
of the Peren and Dimapur districts. Such a joint verification had
also been completed. Therefore, all the steps for the recognition
of the respondent no. 1 as a village were duly undertaken.
(ii) Secondly, the main objection which was canvassed by the State
was the existence of an inter-district boundary dispute between
the districts of Peren and Dimapur and that until the same was
resolved, recognition of the respondent no. 1 village must be
stalled. The High Court was at a loss to understand how the
inter-district boundary dispute was related to the issue at hand
and stated that it would have no bearing insofar as the issue
of recognition was concerned.
(iii) Thirdly, the High Court interpreted the communication of the
Deputy Commissioner, Peren, dated 23.08.2012 which was
issued after the joint verification was completed, to mean that
she had no further comments whatsoever to offer on the issue of
recognition of the respondent no. 1 village. Therefore, it was held
that the communication dated 05.11.2012 sent from the office of
the Commissioner, Nagaland to the Home Commissioner which
reflected upon the comments of the Deputy Commissioner, Peren
was done without any application of mind and was considered
devoid of the other circumstances which favoured the case of
the respondent no. 1. The High Court adopted such a view
especially since the Cabinet had accorded its approval subject
2672 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

only to a joint verification by the concerned authorities and the
said joint verification was completed.
15. The relevant observations made by the Single Judge of the High
Court are reproduced hereinbelow:
“6. As required by the O.M’s dated 22.03.1996 and
01.10.2005, the respondents had carried out all formalities
for recognition of the petitioner village and no objection
certificates were also issued by the Ghowoto Village
Council on 16.08.2007 and K. Xekiye Village Council on
30.11.2007. as there was no objection from any quarter,
survey was conducted and such report was also submitted
on 10.09.2009. The Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur
had also issued a public notice on 13.10.2009. Such
public notice was also published in the local newspaper
and as there was no further objection, the Deputy
Commissioner, Dimapur by letter dated 18.11.2009 had
written to the Commissioner, Nagaland, Kohima stating
that all formalities has been completed and as such, the
matter regarding recognition of the petitioner village was
recommended. On such recommendation, the matter was
put up before the cabinet and the cabinet on 14.12.2011
had given its approval for recognition of the petitioner’s
village along with 33 others. A condition was also laid
down by the Cabinet that for the villages appearing at
Serial No.19 to 24, a joint verification has to be done
by the Deputy Commissioners of Dimapur and Peren
under the supervision of Commissioner, Nagaland. The
name of the petitioner village appears at Serial No.23
and as required by the cabinet, joint verification was also
conducted by the two Deputy commissioners of Dimapur
and Peren.
7. The main taken by the State respondents is that
there is a boundary dispute between the districts of
Dimapur and Peren and therefore until and unless such
boundary dispute is settled recognition cannot be given
to the petitioner village. This Court is not in a position to
understand the ground taken by the State respondents
inasmuch as, the inter-district boundary dispute would
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2673

Old Jalukai Village Council v. Kakiho Village & Ors.

have no bearing insofar as recognition of the petitioner’s
village is concerned. Important point of note is that all
steps have been taken insofar as the recognition of the
petitioner’s village is concerned.
8. A reading of the communication dated 23.08.2012 written
by the Deputy Commissioner, Peren would indicate that
the Deputy Commissioner, Peren has no further comments
for recognition of the two villages i.e. A.K. Industrial Village
and Kakiho Village (petitioner villages). The letter dated
23.08.2012 is reproduced herein below […]
9. Further, the letter of the Office of the Commissioner,
Nagaland dated 05.11.2012 would clearly indicate
that it has reflected only the comments of the Deputy
Commissioner, Peren without application of mind. When
the cabinet has given its approval subject to verification
by two Deputy Commissioners of Dimapur and Peren
districts and such verification having been already
completed this Court is not in position to understand as
to why the recognition of the petitioner’s village has not
been given till date.
10. This being the position, this Court has no hesitation to
direct the State respondents to take steps for issuance of
formal order(s) for recognition of the petitioner’s village. Let
such exercise be completed within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
11. Writ petition is allowed.
12. No costs.”
(Emphasis supplied)

16. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the State preferred Writ Appeal No. 6(K)
of 2015 against the judgment and order rendered by the Single Judge
of the High Court. Vide judgement and order dated 07.10.2015, the
Division Bench of the High Court acknowledged that the respondent
no. 1 village is situated on the boundary between the Peren and
Dimapur districts, which is predominantly inhabited by different
tribes and that this was the foremost reason as to why the issue of
boundary demarcation has become a sensitive one. However, since
2674 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

it was pleaded that the government was taking necessary steps for
effecting the demarcation which would in turn enable the issuance
of a formal order of recognition of the respondent no. 1 village, the
Court extended the time granted by the Single Judge by another
four months from the date of the impugned decision. The relevant
observations are reproduced hereinbelow:
“From the submissions of the learned Addl. A.G, it is quite
clear that State is not contesting the judgment on merit. It
appears from the submissions made that the village of the
respondents/writ petitioners is situated on the boundary
between Dimapur and Peren districts, both districts being
pre-dominantly inhabited by members of different tribes.
Therefore, demarcation of the boundary of the village
has become a sensitive issue. However, the Government
is taking necessary steps for making the demarcation
to enable issuance of formal order of recognition of the
respondents village as directed by learned Single Judge.
But considering the sensitiveness of the matter, some more
time may be required to complete the exercise, he submits.
Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that
he would have no objection for grant of time to the State
for issuance of the consequential order of recognition of
the village.
The being the position, we extend the time of 3 months
granted by the learned Single Judge by another period of
4 months effective from today. Appellant State shall issue
the formal order of recognition of respondents village within
this extended period of 4 months.
This disposes of the writ appeal.”
(Emphasis supplied)

17. It is the case of the appellant that despite being a necessary and proper
party to the writ petition filed before the High Court by the respondent
no. 1 village, they were not impleaded in the said proceedings. Having
come across the impugned decision subsequently and also having
learnt that effective steps to issue orders for the recognition of the
respondent no. 1 village were being undertaken by the State, the
appellant is before us with the present appeal.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2675

Old Jalukai Village Council v. Kakiho Village & Ors.

B. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

i. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
18. Mr. Parthiv K. Goswami, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant, submitted that the appellant was a necessary
and proper party in the adjudication of the dispute before the High
Court on account of the fact that the respondent no. 1 village falls
within their ancestral land and that they had also filed objections to
the Public Notice dated 13.10.2009. Hence, the impugned decision,
having been passed in the absence of the appellant would be bad in
law, in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, deserves
to be set aside on this ground alone.
19. He submitted that the issue of granting recognition to a village falls
within the domain of the executive decision making. It is well settled
that in exercise of the power of judicial review, a writ court can only
examine the decision-making process, and not substitute the decision
under consideration with its own decision. Therefore, once the state
government/cabinet had taken a decision to keep recognition of the
respondent no. 1 village in abeyance upon a consideration of several
relevant factors, the High Court had committed a serious error by
issuing a mandamus and directing the grant of a formal recognition
order, more so, when the question as to whether the respondent no. 1
village falls within the ancestral land of the appellant is a disputed
question of fact which needs proper examination at the ground
level. The impugned decision, which was passed in the absence of
the appellant was neither alive to the existence of such a dispute
nor did it have the assistance of the material now being placed on
record by the appellant.
20. It was further submitted that a new village is generally only established
within the community land which is owned by its inhabitants. The
establishment and recognition of a new village on ancestral land of
another village results in transfer of ownership of the land to the newly
created village. It is for this reason that upon the establishment of a
new village on a land which ancestrally belongs to another village, the
prevailing custom requires a ‘No Objection Certificate’ of the parent/
ancestral village. The said custom is recognized in the O.M. dated
22.03.1996 and also finds codification in the Nagaland Village and
Area Councils Act, 1978 (for short, the “1978 Act”), more specifically
Sections 3 and 4 thereof.
2676 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

21. He vehemently submitted that a bare perusal of the British Survey
Map of 1921-1923, shows that the area admeasuring approx. 1000
acres which is said to be owned by the respondent no. 1 village
falls within the larger area ancestrally owned by the appellant.
Furthermore, he submitted that there also exists an agreement
between the appellant and the Dhansiripar sub-division (within
which the respondent no. 1 village is allegedly situated) where the
Dhansiripar Village Council has also explicitly stated that their land
falls within the absolute jurisdiction of the appellant. According to
customary law governing land ownership and transfer in Nagaland,
the inhabitants of a newly established village falling within the
land ancestrally owned by another village are required to seek the
consent of the parent village and also pay a nominal annual token of
acknowledgment called ‘rampwa lunget’. Such prior consent of the
parent/ ancestral village is a condition precedent even under the O.M.
dated 22.03.1996. It was submitted that the said policy was backed
by a sound rationale and the non-adherence thereof would result in
frustrating the very purpose behind it i.e., the peaceful co-existence
of the neighbouring villages and/or the predominant tribes inhabiting
them, especially considering that inter-tribal conflicts continue to
remain a very sensitive issue in the State. Hence, no formal order(s)
of recognition of the respondent no. 1 village can be issued in the
absence of a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the appellant.
22. With a view to emphasize the importance of the customary practices
in the State of Nagaland governing social practices and ownership
and transfer of land, the counsel placed great emphasis on Article
371A of the Constitution, which was introduced immediately prior
to the creation of the State of Nagaland in 1963 by the 13th
Constitutional Amendment Act of 1962. He submitted that Article
371A of the Constitution inter alia recognizes the importance of
safeguarding the social practices of the Nagas along with the
customary laws and traditions existing in the region by specifically
excluding any law made by the Parliament in respect of certain
matters from application in the State of Nagaland, unless a resolution
to that effect is passed by the Legislative Assembly. Customary
practices that govern land ownership and transfer would subsume
under themselves the issues relating to village establishment and
recognition as well and therefore, would fall within the protection
afforded under Article 371A.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2677

Old Jalukai Village Council v. Kakiho Village & Ors.

23. The counsel reiterated that the present matter is a clear case of
encroachment which has been committed by the respondent no. 1
and its villagers. The respondent no. 1 villagers are from the ‘Sumi’
tribe whose ancestral home is in the district of Zunheboto, Nagaland.
The ancestral home of the Respondent Village is ‘Khumishi A’
Village in sub-division Asuto, falling within the Zunheboto district.
The Counsel also brought our attention to a complaint for eviction
which was filed by the appellant with the Deputy Commissioner,
Peren, much prior to the inauguration of the respondent no. 1 village
i.e., on 22.01.2005, alleging that the respondent no. 1 village has
been illegally established on their land. Addressing the same, on
07.04.2005, the Office of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Jalukie is
said to have communicated the decision of the Deputy Commissioner,
Peren and issued an eviction order directing the villagers belonging
to the respondent no. 1 village to vacate the ‘encroached land’ within
a period of 15 days, upon failure of which appropriate legal action
would be initiated. In light of the same, the counsel submitted that
it is a well settled principle of law that “to seek equity, one must do
equity”. The respondent no.1, having encroached upon the ancestral
land of the appellant without following the conditions precedent for
the establishment of a new village, has no right to seek equity, more
so having approached the court with unclean hands by suppressing
the fact that the appellant had filed objections to the public notice
issued on 13.10.2009.
24. In the last, the counsel brought our attention to the fact that since
the respondent no. 1 village is unrecognized, its villagers have the
right to obtain all facilities which are due to them from their parent
village, namely, the ‘Khumishi A’ Village of sub-division Asuto falling
under the Zunheboto District till such time the formal order(s) for their
recognition is granted. Therefore, it may not be correct to suggest
that the villagers of the respondent no. 1 would be denied all the
benefits that they otherwise may be entitled to, thereby, causing an
infringement of their fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the
Constitution.
25. In light of the aforesaid, the counsel prayed that the impugned
decision be set aside and the State authorities be directed to take a
final call on the issue of recognition of the respondent no. 1 village,
in a time-bound manner, after taking into consideration the objections
of the appellant. Furthermore, it was also prayed that in the event
2678 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

that the State authorities arrive at a decision which goes against the
appellants, their right to take recourse to available legal remedies
before the appropriate forum, be protected.

ii. Submissions on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2
26. Ms. Renuka Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively submitted that the appellant
was not a necessary party both in the Writ Petition and the Writ
Appeal before the High Court.
27. It was submitted what while an objection was raised by the appellant
to the public notice dated 13.10.2009 vide its letter dated 16.10.2009,
the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur had replied to the
same vide its communication dated 08.11.2009 and directed the
appellant to provide additional and sufficient details to back their
claim that the respondent no. 1 village would fall within the boundary
of their ancestral land. However, it was the appellant who has failed
to produce any such document. Therefore, naturally, the objections
raised by the appellant were nullified.
28. The counsel further submitted that there exist around 16 recognised
and unrecognised villages along with the 18th Assam Rifles Head
Quarter between the boundary of the respondent no. 1 village and
the appellant. The respondent no. 1 village is bound by Ghowoto
village in the north, K. Xekiye Village in the South, the Pathor River/
Ballu Nallah in the East and the K. Xekiye Village in the West. The
same is also evident in the map which reveals the boundaries of
the respondent no. 1 village. Therefore, the counsel submitted that
the issue of the inter-district boundary, if any, has nothing to do with
the recognition of the respondent no. 1 and that she was at a loss
to understand how the appellant would be affected in any manner if
the respondent no. 1 village is granted recognition. This was more
so because the respondent no. 2 has established the respondent
no. 1 village in a self-acquired land i.e., the Zhuthovi Village, which
is a recognized village under the Dhansiripar Sub-Division, Dimapur
District, had donated land to Ghowoto Village, which in turn had
donated land to the respondent no. 1 village.
29. The counsel submitted that the respondent no. 1 village has duly
complied with all the formalities for the recognition of a new village
as required by the O.M.’s dated 22.03.1996 and 1.10.2005. i.e., -
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2679

Old Jalukai Village Council v. Kakiho Village & Ors.

(a) ‘No Objection Certificates’ were obtained from the neighbouring
villages on 16.08.2007 and 30.11.2007 respectively, (b) a Survey
report dated 10.09.2009 was submitted by the local authorities,
(c) A public notice dated 13.10.2009 was issued by the Deputy
Commissioner, Dimapur, (d) The Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur
vide its letter dated 18.11.2009 addressed to the Commissioner of
Nagaland, Kohima, confirmed that all formalities for the recognition
of the respondent no. 1 village were completed, (e) On 14.12.2011,
the Cabinet given its approval for the recognition of the respondent
no. 1 village subject to a joint verification, (f) On 23.08.2012, the
joint verification was conducted by the Deputy Commissioners of
Dimapur and Peren in compliance with the Cabinet’s condition and
the Deputy Commissioner, Peren stated that he had no further
objections. In light of the aforesaid, it was submitted that, having
complied with all the requirements, recognition must be granted to
the respondent no. 1 village.
30. The counsel acknowledged that Article 371A pertains to special
provisions vis-à-vis the State of Nagaland whereby the State is
granted immunity in respect of Parliament made law with respect
to certain matters. However, it was her case that while individual
‘Acts of Parliament’ may not apply, certain overarching principles
under the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights guaranteed
under Part III would still find application in the State of Nagaland.
The very object and purpose of the enactment of Article 371A was to
keep the interest and welfare of people of Nagaland at the forefront.
Therefore, such a provision cannot be utilised to the detriment of its
people. Hence, under the garb of customary and religious practices
which are protected by Article 371A, the fundamental rights, more
particularly Articles 14, 19 and 21 respectively, cannot be sought to
be abridged. To fortify her submissions, the counsel placed reliance
on the decision of this Court in PUCL & Anr. Vs. State of Nagaland
and Ors., (Civil Appeal No. 3607 of 2016) and the decision of the
Gauhati High Court in Mangyang Lima v. State of Nagaland and
Ors, reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Gau 3494.
31. The counsel submitted that the rights guaranteed under Articles 14,
19 and 21 respectively, of the villagers belonging to the respondent
no. 1 village were being infringed owing to that fact that their
‘unrecognised’ status deprives them access to several facilities
and schemes provided by the Central and State governments. This
2680 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

denial of Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS) and State Sponsored
Schemes (SSS) hampers their fundamental developmental rights
which are critical to social and economic progress. These would
include:
i. Village Development Board (V.D.B.) : The absence of a V.D.B.
in the respondent no. 1 village has stripped them off the power
to independently plan, implement, and oversee infrastructure
along with providing services and amenities using funds from
the Rural Development Department. The essential schemes to
which access has been denied as a consequence include the
Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act
(MGNREGA), Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Gramin (PMAY-G),
Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY), Deen Dayal
Upadhyaya Grameen Kaushalya Yojana (DDU-GKY), National
Rural Livelihoods Mission (NRLM) etc.
ii. Public Works Department (PWD): No roads are constructed,
nor is maintenance work undertaken in the absence of official
recognition of the respondent no. 1 village.
iii. Health Department: The village is denied access to critical
health care infrastructure such as Primary Health Centres or
dispensaries.
iv. Education Department: There is no establishment of
government schools for primary or secondary education,
depriving children of their fundamental right to education.
v. Food and Civil Supplies Department: Essential food security
schemes under the National Food Security Act (NFSA) remain
inaccessible. These include (a) Antyodaya Anna Yojana scheme
where a household receives 35 kg of food grains per month and
(b) Priority House Hold scheme where up to 5 kg of subsidized
food grains per family member, per month, is granted.
vi. Forest Department: Recognized villages benefit from the grant
of free tree saplings, annually, for environmental protection and
improvement.
vii. Horticulture and Agriculture Department: Free fruit saplings,
free vegetable saplings, farming machinery, tools, and equipment
critical to agricultural development are all denied to the
respondent no. 1 village.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2681

Old Jalukai Village Council v. Kakiho Village & Ors.

viii. Land Resources Department: Free saplings of cash crops
like Arecanut, Coffee, and local spices such as broom grass,
naganeem, lali, kadam etc. which foster sustainable livelihoods
are also denied.
ix. Transport Department: Public transport facilities essential for
connectivity and mobility are also not extended to unrecognized
villages, perpetuating isolation and backwardness.
32. In the last, it was submitted that the fundamental rights and Directive
Principles of State Policy under Parts III and IV of the Constitution
respectively, form the bedrock of our Constitution and cannot be
over-shadowed by Article 371A or any other customary law of the
State, since the rule of law and constitutional supremacy must remain
paramount. Having already complied with the procedural requirements
for its recognition, the objections raised by appellant, cloaked under
the guise of special provisions and customary practices, are clearly
legally untenable and morally unjust. Such opposition seeks to
perpetuate inequality and injustice, denying the residents of the
respondent no. 1 village their rightful access to essential services.
33. In light of the aforesaid, it was submitted that the impugned decision
not be interfered with and that the State Government be directed
to take immediate steps for the recognition of the respondent no. 1
village, without any further delay.

iii. Submissions on behalf of the State
34. Ms. Enatoli Sema, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State
of Nagaland submitted that the Ezong Committee which was tasked
to demarcate the inter-district boundary between the Dhansiripar
Sub-Division of Dimapur District and Jalukie Sub-Division of Peren,
Kohima District had recommended in its Report dated 28.05.2002
that the Government recognise villages in the disputed areas only
after the boundary demarcation is finalised. She submitted that the
while the appellant belongs to the Jalukie sub-division, the respondent
no. 1 belonged to the Dhansiripar sub-division. The Report had
also recorded that several rounds of meetings were held with the
representatives of both the communities belonging to the disputing
villages but no mutually agreeable decision could be arrived at.
Therefore, the attempt of the Government to amicably settle the
issue way back in 2002 was rendered futile. Subsequently, the Ezong
2682 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Committee Report of 2002 was placed before the Cabinet wherein,
the recognition of the respondent No.1 village was recommended
to be kept in abeyance. The Report was then published and several
objections and counter-claims were filed before the Government
which are being reviewed.
35. It was submitted that after the Single Judge of the High Court had
directed the grant of recognition of the respondent no. 1 village,
the State had preferred an appeal before the High Court since the
inter-district boundary demarcation was pending and on-going. The
State, while keeping in mind the past instances of violence in the
disputed areas wished to amicably settle the dispute between the
parties herein, in order to avoid any untoward situation relating to
the two communities in the area.
36. The counsel submitted that pursuant to the order of this Court dated
13.01.2017, a meeting dated 16.03.2017 was held between both
the parties in the presence of the Deputy Commissioners of the
concerned districts. In the aforesaid meeting, while both the parties
could not arrive at a logical conclusion, they agreed to (a) maintain
peace and tranquillity between the villages located in the inter-
district boundaries i.e., Peren and Dimapur Districts; and (b) form
a Committee amongst themselves comprising of a convenor and
three representatives each from both sides. However, the counsel
submitted that no report from the aforesaid committee has been
received by the concerned authorities till date.
37. It was submitted that since the dispute between the two villages
pertain to and touch upon Inter-District Boundary dispute between
the Peren and Dimapur Districts respectively, the State constituted a
Cabinet Sub-Committee vide Notification No. GAB-1/333/2014 (VOL-I)
309 dated 7.8.2019. The mandate of the said Sub-Committee was
to look into the setting up of new settlement ‘Lamhai Namdi’ and
finalise the boundary demarcation between the two Districts of Peren
and Dimapur in order to arrive at a solution to solve the present
impasse. The Sub-Committee physically visited the spot on 14.9.2019
and on 23.10.2019, a consultative meeting with both the Hoho’s/
Tribal Organisations, in the presence of both the respective Deputy
Commissioners was held whereby the Hoho’s/Tribal organisations
were directed to submit additional documents. Finally, the Report
of the Sub-Committee was placed before the cabinet on 13.7.2021.
Pursuant to the Report of the Sub-Committee, a new District called
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2683

Old Jalukai Village Council v. Kakiho Village & Ors.

Chumoukedima was carved out in 2021 and therefore, the inter-
district dispute between the two villages presently falls between the
Peren and Chumoukedima districts.
38. Furthermore, it was submitted that pursuant to the intervention
of this Court vide order dated 3.12.2024 and in the interest of
maintaining peace between the two communities, the State convened
two meetings on 21.12.2024 and 3.1.2025 respectively with the
disputing villages. The discussions during the meeting revealed
that the outstanding issues between the two villages have narrowed
down. There is every chance of a positive negotiation between the
parties which may lead to a final settlement. Therefore, the counsel
submitted that in order to facilitate such a settlement, a final chance
be given to the State so that the two villages can meet under the
aegis of the tribal councils, consisting of tribal elders, as provided
under Section 26 of the Nagaland Village and Tribal Councils Act,
1978. This section enjoins the tribal council to inter-alia, “assist
settlement of disputes and cases involving breaches of customary
laws and usages.”.

C. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
39. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
having gone through the materials on record, the following questions
fall for our consideration:
I. Whether it could be said that the respondent no. 1 village had
fulfilled all the necessary conditions/criteria for the issuance of
formal order(s) of recognition as per the O.M.’s dated 22.03.1996
and 01.10.2005 respectively, especially in light of the fact that
the appellant had raised objections to the Public Notice dated
13.10.2009?
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?

D. ANALYSIS

i. Whether all the necessary conditions/criteria for the
issuance of formal order(s) of recognition as per the O.M.’s
dated 22.03.1996 and 01.10.2005 respectively were fulfilled?
2684 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

40. Article 371A of the Constitution which was inserted by the Constitution
(Thirteenth Amendment) Act, 1962 and which came into effect on
01.12.1963 carves out a special provision as regards the State of
Nagaland. It specifically provides that no Act of Parliament in respect
of the religious or social practices of the Nagas, Naga customary
law and procedure, and ownership and transfer of land and its
resources, amongst others, shall apply to the State of Nagaland
unless the Legislative Assembly of the State decides to adopt them
through a specific resolution to that effect. The relevant portion of
Article 371A reads thus:
“371A. Special provision with respect to the State
of Nagaland.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in this
Constitution,—
(a) no Act of Parliament in respect of—
(i) religious or social practices of the Nagas;
(ii) Naga customary law and procedure;
(iii) administration of civil and criminal justice involving
decisions according to Naga customary law;
(iv) ownership and transfer of land and its resources,
shall apply to the State of Nagaland unless the Legislative
Assembly of Nagaland by a resolution so decides;”
(Emphasis supplied)

41. The insertion of Article 371A was the outcome of a political settlement
which culminated after a decade-long struggle and is also a reflection
of the grant of the right to ‘self-rule’ and political autonomy to the
people of Nagaland.3 The decision of the Gauhati High Court in
Sabeituo Mechulho and Ors v. State of Nagaland and Ors. reported
in 2011 SCC OnLine Gau 592 which held that Article 371A has no
role to play in the matter of provision of reservation to a woman
representative belonging to a society/NGO in the Village Council
or local body, had the occasion to deal with the reason behind the
insertion of a special provision in the nature of Article 371A. The

3 Rajya Sabha Deb., (Sep. 3, 1962) 4660.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2685

Old Jalukai Village Council v. Kakiho Village & Ors.

High Court emphasized the lofty purpose for which such a provision
had been included in the Constitution i.e., the preservation of the
distinct identity of the Naga people by allowing them to live with their
distinct religious and social practices, customs, traditions etc. The
relevant observations are thus:
“10. This provision has been made to preserve the
identity of Naga People by allowing them to live with their
distinct religious, social practice, customs, tradition, etc.
They have been given opportunity to administer civil and
criminal justice as per their customary law. Article 371A
is silent about the share of participation of Naga men and
women in the local administration. There is no mention
about reservation for Naga Woman representative in the
local administration. In my considered view article 371A
has no role to pay or application in the matter of providing
reservation for woman representative in the Village
Council or local body. This provision is for a mighty and
lofty purpose/aim to preserve the distinct identity of Naga
people for which it has been made incumbent upon the
parliament to have the approval of the Nagaland State
Legislature before any Act is implemented or enforced in
the State of Nagaland. The parliament would not have any
say in the matter of providing reservation for woman in the
local body like Village Council. It is the State Government
which is required to enact law or rules for such purpose.”
(Emphasis supplied)

42. In the debates which ensued in the Rajya Sabha as regards the
passing of the Constitution (Thirteenth Amendment) Bill, 1962 and
the State of Nagaland Bill, 1962, the then Prime Minister of India,
Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru, remarked that “Anyhow, it is for the people
of Nagaland to make their rules about their land”4. It is the case of
the appellant that the issue of village establishment and recognition
falls within the larger umbrella of “ownership and transfer of land and
its resources” and is rooted in certain unique social and customary
practices and procedures. In this context, it is relevant for us to

4 Ibid at 4716.
2686 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

refer to the provisions of the 1978 Act, especially Section 3 thereof
which reads thus:
“Section 3 - Constitution: Every recognised Village shall
have a Village Council.
Explanation: Village means and includes an area
recognised as a Village as such by the Government of
Nagaland. An area in order to be a Village under this act
shall fulfil the following conditions namely:
(a) The land in the area belong to the population
of that area or given to them by the Government of
Nagaland, if the land in question is a Government
land or is land given to them by the lawful owner of
the land; and
(b) The Village is established according to the usage
and customary practice of the population of the area.”
(Emphasis supplied)

43. The Explanation to Section 3, elaborates on the meaning of a
‘Village’. It states that a village would mean and include “an area
which is recognised as a village by the Government of Nagaland”.
Furthermore, an area in order to be recognised as a village must
fulfil certain conditions i.e. – The land/area in which the village exists
must either belong to the population in that area or be given to such
a village/population by the Government of Nagaland/lawful owner
AND, the village must be established according to the usages and
customary practices of the population belonging to that area. The
land in question would be given to the village population by the
government if it is a government land and if otherwise, by the lawful
owner of the land.
44. Therefore, a great amount of emphasis is placed primarily on two
things – One, ownership of the land, either communally by the village
as a whole or individually by the members of the village; and two,
the adherence to the existing customary practices in the process of
‘recognition’ of the village. The State Government is empowered to
recognise a particular area as a ‘village’ in accordance with Section
3 of the 1978 Act, upon the fulfilment of the conditions mentioned
therein and only when an application is made to them in that behalf
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2687

Old Jalukai Village Council v. Kakiho Village & Ors.

by a section of people inhabiting the particular area which is sought
to be given a recognised status. In such an application, the people
residing in such an area must be able to show in a bona fide and
sufficient manner that they are the lawful owners of the said area/
land and that they have established their village as per the existing
customary practices.
45. The two O.M.’s dated 22.03.1996 and 01.10.2005 respectively,
elaborates on the process which is to accompany such a claim for
recognition. These O.M.’s are said to also mirror and codify the
existing customs pertaining to village recognition in the State. A
bare reading of the two O.M.’s reveals that the idea of consent and
communication between all the relevant stakeholders is cardinal
and fundamental to the process of village recognition. We say so
because, in the O.M. dated 22.03.1996, apart from the conditions
stipulating that a village must have a minimum of 30 houses with a
population of not less than 150 people, have sufficient land for its
expansion and agricultural purposes and be constituted by indigenous
inhabitants, it is also required that ‘No Objection Certificates’ be
obtained from several stakeholders. Condition (v) stands testament
to this and states that when a new village is constituted by members
of more than one village, but in a different location and within the
ancestral land of a parent village, the Village Council Chairman of
such a parent village must give a ‘No Objection Certificate’ while
indicating the boundaries of the new village which is sought to be
established and later, recognised. When the exact boundaries of the
village cannot be determined, it is required that the Village Council
Chairman of the parent village along with all the Gaobura’s of the
parent village decide upon the nature of the boundaries with the
new village, on any permanent basis, which is acceptable to both
parties. Additionally, if the parent village has appointed Gaobura’s
who are allowed to function as the constitutional head of the village
in matters of administration of the village land, then the concerned
Gaobura’s must also attest their signatures to the ‘No Objection
Certificate’ along with the Village Council Chairman.
46. A joint survey of the newly established village is also conducted by
competent personnel and authorities belonging to the Land Records
& Survey Department and other appropriate civil authorities to
demarcate, map and record the area of the village. Apart from the
same, clearance in the form of a ‘No Objection Certificate’ is also
2688 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

required from the appropriate officials of the Forest Department, a
Class-I Magistrate and the neighbouring villages. Finally, after all
the clearances and procedures are complied with, an administrative
approval would be given by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) and
the matter of recognition of the said village would be referred to the
higher authorities of the District administration who would place their
proposal(s) for recognition before the government.
47. The O.M. dated 01.10.2005, which brought in the requirement of
issuance of a public notice by the Deputy Commissioner of the
concerned district also places the idea of mutual consent from all
concerned parties at the forefront. This notice must mandatorily
contain details as regards the area of the land and the boundary
of the village whose recognition is being proposed. A period of 30
days is provided to the public to file objections, if any. This additional
criterion, again, fortifies the assertion that all the relevant parties/
villages must be apprised of and also be on board with the recognition
of the new village.
48. The raison d’être behind the issuance of a public notice is that one
last opportunity be given to those interested parties/villages who might
be adversely affected by the recognition of the new village but who
were otherwise left out from the process preceding the publication
of notice and to also ensure that a transparent platform is provided
for them to put forth their case with reasons so that they can be
heard before any further progress is made in the matter. This would
further obviate any possibility of a subsequent conflict occurring in
the area between two or more villages laying claim over a particular
land. On this aspect, the appellant is right in submitting that there
is a sound rationale behind the existence of such a procedure i.e.,
the peaceful co-existence of the neighbouring village and/or the
predominant tribes inhabiting the areas, especially considering that
inter-tribal conflicts remain a very sensitive issue in the State.
49. However, what we would like to further point out is that it is the
bounden duty of the State and its relevant authorities to adequately
and appropriately consider any and all such objections which may
be raised by the interested parties in response to the public notice
issued by them, provided that they are lodged within the stipulated
time-period. Otherwise, the very object of issuing a public notice would
be vitiated. In the present case, the said public notice was issued on
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2689

Old Jalukai Village Council v. Kakiho Village & Ors.

13.10.2009 and vide communication dated 16.10.2009, the appellant
had raised its objections to the recognition of the respondent no. 1
village by contending that that the respondent no. 1 village is in fact
sought to be established on their land. The objection is said to have
also been published in a local daily on 18.10.2009. The Office of the
Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur vide its letter dated 08.11.2009 had
directed the appellant to furnish more comprehensive details along
with the relevant boundaries and records to incidate as to how the
respondent no. 1 village would fall within their land. The authorities
further stipulated that, if the same is not provided within a period
of 7 days, their objection dated 16.10.2009 would stand nullified.
On the ensuing day i.e., on 09.11.2009, the appellant sent a reply
providing details supporting their claim to the Deputy Commissioner,
Dimapur. It is unclear as to what extent the aforesaid communication
made by the appellant was considered by the Deputy Commissioner,
Dimapur before additional steps were taken to forward the proposal
for recognition of the respondent no. 1 village to the government.
The State of Nagaland has not made a single averment regarding
the merits of the claim made by the appellant over the land in which
the respondent no. 1 village is situated. It is not the case of the State
of Nagaland that the claims made by the appellant are absolutely
baseless and devoid of merit as well. Therefore, we are at a loss to
understand how it can be contended, both by the State of Nagaland
and by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively, that the conditions/
criteria laid down in the two O.M.’s, especially the latter O.M. dated
01.10.2005, were fulfilled in the present case.
50. With the existing procedure that is prescribed for the recognition of
a village in the State of Nagaland, we are of the view that it would
not be open for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively to blanketly
assail the right of the appellant to raise its objections as regards the
recognition of the respondent no. 1 village. However, what we would
like to highlight is that it is the responsibility of the State to weed
out frivolous objections and those devoid of merit from the process,
in such a manner that the rights of the village seeking recognition
are not prejudiced. What would be appropriate at this juncture is for
the State to consider the objections of the appellant on their own
merits and decide whether their ‘No objection’ is a pre-requisite
for the grant of recognition of the respondent no. 1 village or not.
If answered in the negative, the appellant would have no locus to
2690 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

challenge the recognition of the respondent no. 1 village and the
matter would be put to bed at least insofar as these two parties are
concerned. Only in the instance that the said question is answered
in the affirmative, would the respondent no. 1 village be required to
initiate conversation with representatives of the appellant, to arrive at
a mutually beneficial settlement and prevent the risk of any adverse
measures being taken against them.

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?
51. The demarcation of the inter-district boundary between the districts of
Kohima and Dimapur and its nexus with the recognition of village(s)
was first brought to the fore by the Ezong Committee Report.
While undertaking the task of boundary demarcation and receiving
information from all corners, it was observed that groups belonging
to both districts had claims and counterclaims over pieces of land
irrespective of whether they had effective physical possession of
the said land. The broad consensus amongst the concerned parties
was to place all the villages affiliated with the ‘Sumi’ tribe in the
Dimapur District and those affiliated to the ‘Zeliangrong’ tribe under
the Kohima district. This aspect is relevant for us since the appellant
belongs to the ‘Zeliangrong’ tribe, while the respondent no. 1 village
is affiliated to the ‘Sumi’ tribe.
52. In the course of examining the issue of boundary demarcation, the
Committee was apprised of certain newly established villages which
were seeking recognition. It was in this context that the Committee was
of the opinion that it would be desirable if the government considers
the question of recognition of these newly established villages in
the disputed areas after the boundary demarcation between the two
districts was finalised. It is, however, noteworthy that while suggesting
the final boundary which is to run between the two districts, more
particularly the Jalukie sub-division of Peren in the Kohima District and
the Dhansiripar sub-division in the Dimapur District, the Committee
noted that there were some practical difficulties in placing all the
‘Sumi’ villages in Dimapur and all the ‘Zeliangrong’ village in Kohima
respectively. Therefore, from a purely administrative standpoint, it
was decided that ‘Kiyevi A’ which is a ‘Sumi’ village would be placed
under the Kohima District and ‘Mhaikam’ which is a ‘Zeliangrong’
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2691

Old Jalukai Village Council v. Kakiho Village & Ors.

village would be placed under the Dimapur District. Therefore, in
the eventuality that the respondent no. 1 village, a ‘Sumi’ village, is
given recognition but the boundary demarcation is decided in such
a manner that they would be placed under the Kohima (now Peren)
District instead of the Dimapur District, the same would not be an
outlier considering that there exists another ‘Sumi’ village which was
also suggested to be placed under the Kohima (now Peren) District
by the aforesaid Committee for administrative reasons.
53. In the meantime, the respondent no. 1 had applied for recognition in
the year 2009 and their proposal was elevated for a final decision to
the Cabinet after allegedly complying with the requirements under the
O.M.’s dated 22.03.1996 and 01.10.2005 respectively. The Cabinet in
its meeting dated 14.12.2011 had directed that out of the 34 villages
whose proposal for recognition was being considered, a set of 6
villages, which included the respondent no. 1 village herein, would
be required to undergo a joint verification conducted by the Deputy
Commissioners of Peren and Dimapur districts respectively. Now,
once the joint verification was complete, the Deputy Commissioner,
Dimapur vide communication dated 26.07.2012 reiterated that the
respondent no. 1 village would fall within the Dhansiripar sub-division
of the Dimapur District. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Peren
vide communication dated 23.08.2012 seems to have again referred
to the issue of the “inter-distrct boundary dispute” by stating that “the
office of the D.C. peren has no further comments for recognition…
until the boundary dispute between the two districts is settled”. Due to
the aforesaid observation made by the Deputy Commissioner, Peren,
the Office of the Commissioner, Nagaland vide communication dated
05.11.2012 addressed to the Home Commissioner had suggested
that the recognition of the respondent no. 1 village and another
village by the name ‘A.K. Industrial village’, be kept in abeyance
till such time the boundary issue is resolve since this would invite
more villages in the disputed area to seek recognition and cause
an environment of serious unrest. Additionally, the Commissioner
also invited attention to the Ezong Committee Report which had
recorded its detailed recommendations on the issue of the boundary
dispute between the two districts and sought necessary action on
the matter.
54. Despite granting a formal approval to the Ezong Committee Report
on 24.10.2003, it was only after the aforesaid development that a
2692 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

decision was made to notify the Ezong Committee Report for inviting
claims and objections from the public. Such a decision was taken
by the Cabinet in its consultation meeting as late as 10.06.2013
i.e., more than 10 years after the Ezong Committee Report was
submitted for necessary action. The Cabinet had, again, emphasized
that the recognition of the respondent no. 1 village would be kept
in abeyance until such time the recommendations of the Ezong
Committee is finally notified.
55. In the writ proceedings which was initiated by the respondent no.
1 before the Single Judge of the High Court, the stance taken by
the State was that they could not decide on the recognition of
the respondent no. 1 due to the subsisting inter-district boundary
dispute. It was averred that they were in the midst of examining
the multiple objections received after the recommendations of the
Ezong Committee Report was notified for inviting views from the
public. Furthermore, it was also submitted that they were awaiting
a ground reality report on the issue. This stance, however, did not
seem to find favour with the Single Judge of the High Court who
went on to observe that “the inter-district boundary dispute would
have no bearing insofar as the recognition of the petitioner’s village
is concerned”. However, the State preferred a Writ Appeal and the
Division Bench in its impugned decision had extended the time-limit
for the issuance of formal order(s) of recognition of the respondent
no. 1 village by observing as follows:
“[…] It appears from the submissions made that the
village of the respondents/writ petitioners is situated on
the boundary between Dimapur and Peren districts, both
districts being pre-dominantly inhabited by members of
different tribes. Therefore, demarcation of the boundary
of the village has become a sensitive issue. However,
the Government is taking necessary steps for making
the demarcation to enable issuance of formal order of
recognition of the respondents village as directed by
learned Single Judge. But considering the sensitiveness of
the matter, some more time may be required to complete
the exercise, he submits.”
(Emphasis supplied)
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2693

Old Jalukai Village Council v. Kakiho Village & Ors.

Therefore, the impugned decision while agreeing with the Single
Judge that the inter-district boundary dispute had nothing to do
with the recognition of the respondent no. 1 village appears to have
nevertheless been convinced with the argument canvassed by the
State at least for the purpose of allowing some additional time to
the State authorities.
56. Under circumstances such as these, i.e., when the State has taken
a policy decision or through its Cabinet has arrived at a certain
conclusion, in their wisdom, after exhaustively considering all the
relevant factors and recommendations, it would not be appropriate for
courts to interfere or supplant the finding arrived at by the government.
In the absence of any patent arbitrariness, capriciousness, mala fides
or illegality, courts have always subscribed to the rule that executive
decision-making must not be dissected and prodded unnecessarily.
This is specially true for a State like Nagaland wherein the system
of administration and governance is slightly different from the other
States and where the government might be more familiar and informed
of the ground realities that exist. In such scenarios, yielding to the
executive expertise might be the right call. This judicial policy of non-
interference with the Cabinet decisions made by the government or
vis-á-vis policy matters is no more res integra.
57. This Court in Sachidanand Pandey and Another v. State of West
Bengal and Others reported in (1987) 2 SCC 295 was faced with
a question on whether the court could judicially review the Cabinet
decision of the State government to lease out a part of the zoo land
which was used for fodder cultivation, as a burial ground, hospital
etc. for animals for the construction of a five-star hotel. While
answering in the negative, it was held that the decision to lease
out the land was taken openly and after due application of mind to
relevant considerations including the ecology and the provision of
alternative facilities to the zoo. Furthermore, it was stated that in a
scenario where the decision-making of the government was alive to
the various relevant considerations and a conscious decision was
arrived at after investing sufficient thought and deliberation, it would
not be appropriate for the court to interfere in the absence of mala
fides plaguing the process. However, if the relevant considerations
are proven to have been cast aside without due deliberation and
irrelevant considerations seem to bear significance, there would be
every reason for courts to interfere in public interest. Still, it was
2694 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

cautioned that it would not be proper for the court to intervene to
the extent that it attempts at a laborious balancing of the relevant
considerations. Instead of indulging in that exercise, it was suggested
that courts must rather resign themselves to accepting the decision
of the government/appropriate authority in that regard. The relevant
observations are reproduced thus:
“4. […] The question raised in the present case is whether
the Government of West Bengal has shown such lack of
awareness of the problem of environment in making an
allotment of land for the construction of a five star hotel
at the expense of the zoological garden that it warrants
interference by this Court? Obviously, if the government is
alive to the various considerations requiring thought and
deliberation and has arrived at a conscious decision after
taking them into account, it may not be for this Court to
interfere in the absence of mala fides. On the other hand, if
relevant considerations are not borne in mind and irrelevant
considerations influence the decision, the court may
interfere in order to prevent a likelihood of prejudice to the
public. Whenever a problem of ecology is brought before
the court, the court is bound to bear in mind Article 48-A
of the Constitution, the Directive Principle which enjoins
that “the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the
environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of
the country”, and Article 51-A(g) which proclaims it to be
the fundamental duty of every citizen of India “to protect
and improve the natural environment including forests,
lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living
creatures”. When the court is called upon to give effect to
the Directive Principle and the fundamental duty, the court
is not to shrug its shoulders and say that priorities are a
matter of policy and so it is a matter for the policy-making
authority. The least that the court may do is to examine
whether appropriate considerations are borne in mind and
irrelevancies excluded. In appropriate cases, the court
may go further, but how much further must depend on
the circumstances of the case. The court may always give
necessary directions. However the court will not attempt to
nicely balance relevant considerations. When the question
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2695

Old Jalukai Village Council v. Kakiho Village & Ors.

involves the nice balancing of relevant considerations, the
court may feel justified in resigning itself to acceptance
of the decision of the concerned authority. We may now
proceed to examine the facts of the present case.”
(Emphasis supplied)

58. In yet another decision of this Court in Indian Charge Chrome Ltd.
and Another reported in (2006) 12 SCC 331, it was held that in the
absence of the Cabinet decision being tainted or, vitiated for any
palpable reason, the role of the court in scrutinising the said policy
decision, was limited. It was observed thus:
“[…]There is nothing to show that the noting of the Minister
was tainted in any manner or that the subsequent Cabinet
decision was vitiated for any reason that could be gone
into by the Court. In a sense, counsel for OMC and the
State of Orissa are right in submitting that it was really a
policy decision and the role of this Court in respect of such
a policy decision and its scrutiny was limited and within
the scope of that limited scrutiny, there was no justification
in interfering with the decision of the Government. Of
course, as we have indicated earlier, it is for the Central
Government to give its approval or not to give its approval
to the proposal of the State Government. The Central
Government is yet to take a decision. Since, we have
not reached that stage, we are also not called upon to
pronounce on it at this stage.”
(Emphasis supplied)

59. Subsequently, in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Chaudhari
Ran Beer Singh and Another reported in (2008) 5 SCC 550, this
Court was concerned with an issue wherein the State Government
decided on the creation of a new district by the name of ‘Baghpat’
and published a notification in that regard The same was challenged
by way of a writ petition. This Court had reiterated that the scope
of interference is very limited when policy decisions are concerned
since the government is better equipped to weigh and measure all
the relevant aspects that must be taken into consideration. So long as
the infringement of fundamental rights is not shown or evident, courts
2696 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

must refrain from substituting its own judgment while assessing the
propriety of the government’s decisions which is made in exercise
of its discretion or as a matter of policy. The relevant observations
are reproduced hereinbelow:
“13. Cabinet’s decision was taken nearly eight years back
and appears to be operative. That being so there is no
scope for directing reconsideration as was done in Ram
Milan case, though learned counsel for the respondents
prayed that such a direction should be given. As rightly
contended by learned counsel for the State, in matters of
policy decisions, the scope of interference is extremely
limited. The policy decision must be left to the Government
as it alone can decide which policy should be adopted after
considering all relevant aspects from different angles. In
matter of policy decisions or exercise of discretion by the
Government so long as the infringement of fundamental
right is not shown, courts will have no occasion to interfere
and the court will not and should not substitute its own
judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters.
In assessing the propriety of a decision of the Government
the court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible
from that of the Government.”
(Emphasis supplied)

60. A conspectus of the aforementioned decisions would indicate
that when an executive Cabinet decision is the outcome of sound
reasoning, an inclusive consideration of all the relevant factors and
based on recommendations, it cannot be sought to be faulted with,
especially through judicial intervention. Assailing it in the absence
of arbitrariness and merely because a ‘better’ alternate view could
have been taken or was possible, would not suffice in order to
strike down such a decision or render it inoperative. The Ezong
Committee, while working on its recommendations for a boundary
demarcation between the two districts and while assessing the
ground level realities existing in the disputed areas, witnessed first-
hand potential for conflict if recognition is given to those villages
which were situated in the disputed area and therefore, suggested
that recognition of those select villages be kept in abeyance. The
Deputy Commissioner, Peren also refrained from commenting on the
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2697

Old Jalukai Village Council v. Kakiho Village & Ors.

recognition of the respondent no. 1 village in view of the subsisting
boundary dispute. Therefore, on the advice of the Commissioner and
Home Commissioner, the Cabinet sought to keep the recognition
of the respondent no. 1 village in abeyance until the inter-district
boundary dispute was solved. The same cannot be faulted for being
unreasonable or arbitrary and based on no materials.
61. However, we have been apprised of the report of yet another
Cabinet Sub-Committee which was submitted before the Cabinet on
13.07.2021, which re-examined the inter-district boundary dispute
between the Peren and Dimapur districts. The new committee had
the occasion to consider or rather, re-consider the recommendations
made by the Ezong Committee back in 2002. This Report of the
Cabinet Sub-Committee came much after the impugned decision
dated 07.10.2015. Therefore, it cannot be said that the authorities
designated by the Cabinet sub-committee would have been unaware
of the unrecognised status of the respondent no. 1 village or their
claim for recognition while undertaking the site visits, assessing the
ground realities and performing their due diligence on the matter.
However, what must be noted with emphasis is that the Report of the
Cabinet sub-committee while mentioning the tussle which had ensued
between the ‘Lamhai’ Village and ‘Kiyevi’ village due to their claims
in the disputed area, is conspicuously silent about the respondent
no. 1 village and its conflict, if any, with another village on account
of it falling within the disputed boundary area of the two districts.
Therefore, while there may exist a dispute between the appellant
and the respondent no. 1 village regarding the ownership of land,
what is evident is that it does not seem to have anything to do with
the boundary dispute which is prevailing in the region.
62. Moreover, the Report of the Cabinet Sub-committee arrived at a
conclusion that the recommendations of the Ezong Committee were
largely feasible and practical albeit with a few exceptions and partial
modifications. Under this Report too, a ‘Sumi’ village was suggested
to be placed under the Peren District and a ‘Zeliangrong’ village
was recommended to be kept in the Dimapur District, purely for
administrative convenience. The second noteworthy aspect of the
present Report was that the establishment and recognition of new
villages within a demarcated “buffer-zone/area” between the Jalukie
sub-division of the Peren District and Dhansiripar sub-division of the
Dimapur District was recommended to be considered only after the
2698 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

boundary dispute was put to rest. The Report provided an Annexure
under which the list of villages, both recognised and unrecognised,
falling within such a “buffer-zone/area”, was detailed. A careful perusal
of the same reveals that the respondent no. 1 village does not fall
within the said buffer-zone/area.
63. On a consideration of the recent report of the Cabinet sub-committee,
which comes as a relatively recent development, it can be seen that
the stance of the State blaming the inter-district boundary dispute
for the non-recognition of the respondent no. 1 deserves to be
viewed strictly. When the Ezong Committee Report was published
in the year 2002, the respondent no. 1 village was not inaugurated
or established yet. Hence, there is every possibility that the State
authorities attributed the persisting inter-district dispute as a bona
fide reason for keeping the recognition of the respondent no. 1 village
in abeyance, largely due to the absence of clarity on the bounds of
the respondent no. 1 village and whether it fell within the disputed
area or not. However, post the year 2021, i.e., it was obvious and
plain as day that the boundary dispute had nothing whatsoever to
do with the case of the respondent no. 1 village, especially since it’s
the case of the State themselves that the respondent no. 1 village
is situated approx. 3.7 kms from the buffer-zone/area.
64. The only reasonable ground or basis to further delay the recognition
of the respondent no. 1 was the objection raised by the appellant
to the public notice dated 13.10.2009. Still, this was also more
than 15 years ago. We are equally baffled and frustrated with the
enormous reluctance that the State has exhibited in considering
the merits of the objections of the appellants and putting an end
to this issue.
65. Furthermore, the nature of the objections raised by the appellant are
such that they render it impossible for this court, which owing to its
systemic limitations, would not be well-equipped to understand the
nuances of the rich history of the land and the inter-tribal land related
interactions which transpired over the years, to authoritatively decide
such claims. The State authorities would be better suited to delve into
the accuracy and correctness of the claims put forth by the appellant
and effectively decide the issue once and for all. The courts face, for
the lack of a better word, a real impediment in deciding such complex
disputed questions of fact which are involved in the present litigation,
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2699

Old Jalukai Village Council v. Kakiho Village & Ors.

especially at this stage. It would also be apposite to mention that
courts must also not bear the burden of what is a responsibility cast
upon the State and entrusted to executive decision-making.
66. The learned counsel for the State has also submitted in her counter-
affidavit that there might be objections by other parties, apart from
those raised by the appellants, which are germane to the issue of
the respondent no. 1 village’s recognition. It is clarified that any
and all such objections may also be looked into and decided upon
expeditiously.
67. We appreciate that the State has refrained from adopting a completely
adversarial stand on the present issue but it must not be forgotten that
the State is still duty bound to carry out its role as an administrator
and ensure that the proper governance of its districts and villages
do not suffer as a result of it embracing such a non-confrontational
role instead. In the face of conflict, the State must delicately balance
its function as a mediator but also as an authority while seamlessly
morphing into either role as per the demands of the situation before
itself. Ever since this Court has taken seisin of this matter, the State
has attempted to bring both parties together, at the same table, on
multiple occasions, in the hopes of an amicable settlement being
reached. However, every one of those attempts has remained
unsuccessful in view of both parties refusing to concede or arrive
at a middle-ground. In such a scenario, the only option that remains
with the State is to consider the stand taken by both parties, on
merits, from an objective point of view and implement its decision
without hesitation. We say so, because the alternative – protracting
the present impasse and maintaining this limbo - is equally, if not
more undesirable.
68. We have been informed by the State that certain basic facilities
have been made available to the respondent no. 1 and the same
is tabulated below:

NAME OF
SL. NO SCHEME/FACILITIES REMARKS
DEPT.
1. Rural 77 job card holders are The job holders are
Development there in Kakiho village registered under K.
Xikeye village since
2012-13.
2700 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

2. Education NIL There are at present
no schools in the
village. The nearest
schools are:
1. GPS Ghowoto
which is approx..
2km away.
2. GHS Lhotavi
village which is
approx.. 3km
away.
3. GMS at Amaluma
which is approx..
3-4 km away.
4. GMS at Doyapur
which is approx..
5 km away.
3. Social Welfare Anganwadi centre with
Anganwadi worker/
helper available.
PMMVY/IGNPS are
availed.
4. PHED The village is connected
with water supply under
Jal Jeevan Mission
since 2022-2023.
All 35 households
have functional tap
connection.
Under SBM (Grameen)
one plastic waste
management unit has
been provided during
2022-2023.
5. Electrical Electricity connected Single Point metering
6. Food and Civil There are 16 priority
Supplies house hold ration card
holders.
7. Agriculture NIL NIL
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2701

Old Jalukai Village Council v. Kakiho Village & Ors.

8. Horticulture NIL NIL
9. Medical NIL No PHC/CHC/SC In
Kakiho (U/R). Nearest
Sub Centre is at Pimla
which is about 6-7 KM
from Kakiho (U/R)
village.
10. Water Balu Nallah MI
Resource Project – Surface
Minor Irrigation (SMI)
project under PMKSY
“Har Khet Ko Pani”.
11. Forest NIL NIL
12. Fishery NIL NIL
13. Land NIL NIL
Resources
14. Industries and NIL NIL
Commerce

69. In the aforesaid context, the counsel for the appellant also submitted
that the respondent no. 1 currently being unrecognised, would still
be entitled to avail certain benefits which are due to them from their
parent village, namely the ‘Khumishi A’ Village belonging to the Asuto
sub-division of the Zunheboto District. The aforesaid may be true
in terms of availing benefits like obtaining free tree saplings under
the schemes of the Forest Department; free fruit saplings from the
Horticulture Department; free vegetable saplings, farming machinery,
tools etc. from the Agricultural Department; free saplings of cash
crops and local spices from the Land Resources Department and;
access to several food security schemes under the Food and Civil
Supplies Department. These benefits, not requiring the existence
of permanent structures and being easily transportable, can be
availed by sharing in the proceeds of what is made available to
the parent village/neighbouring village(s) on a mutual consent
basis for the interim period. However, other essentials facilities
like the construction of roads, health infrastructure, school and
other benefits that would be made available upon the creation of a
Village Development Board, still remain denied to the respondent
no. 1 village since they require a separate and considerable amount
of fund allocation on part of the State along with the erection of
2702 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

permanent structures. It is keeping this in mind that we urge the
State authorities to take a final call on the issue of recognition of
the respondent no. 1 village with the utmost urgency and with strict
adherence to the procedure which has been contemplated for the
said purpose. In the likely event that a decision is arrived at to deny
recognition to the respondent no. 1 village, it must be for reasons
falling within the umbrella of the procedure laid out therein and the
State must be ready to clearly indicate what their next plan of action
would be, in that scenario.
70. Another set of arguments were canvassed by the respondent nos.
1 and 2 as regards the relationship between the fundamental rights,
more particularly Articles 14, 19 and 21 guaranteed under Part III of the
Constitution and the special status assigned to customary practices
under Article 371A of the Constitution. It was argued that customary
practices protected under Article 371A cannot be utilised as a tool,
rather a weapon, to abridge the fundamental rights of the people of
Nagaland and the villagers of the respondent no. 1 village. However,
in the absence of the relevant provisions of the 1978 Act and O.M.’s
dated 22.03.1996 and 1.10.2005 respectively, themselves being
challenged as being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed
to the respondent no. 1 village and its inhabitants, there arises no
occasion for us delve into the said question of law. The grievance
of the respondent, as we understand, is primarily due to the delayed
action, nay inaction, of the State authorities in conclusively deciding
their application for recognition and the assignment of irrelevant
reasons that perpetually kept their recognition in abeyance. We
believe the said grievance has been addressed by us, appropriately
and in great detail, in the preceding paragraphs.

E. CONCLUSION
71. In light of the aforesaid discussion, it cannot be said that the procedure
envisaged in the two O.M.’s dated 22.03.1996 and 01.10.2005
respectively, was complied with in the present case. Furthermore,
we are of the view that the inter-district boundary dispute had no
nexus whatsoever with the issue of recognition of the respondent
no. 1 village.
72. The decision of the High Court insofar as the observations made
regarding the compliance with the aforesaid two O.M.’s are concerned,
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2703

Old Jalukai Village Council v. Kakiho Village & Ors.

is set aside solely because the High Court while passing the impugned
decision, was not alive to the case of the appellant herein.
73. The State authorities are directed to re-issue a public notice regarding
the recognition of the respondent no. 1 village and exhaustively
consider all the objections which may be raised from every quarter,
including that of the appellant herein. A period of 6 months is provided
to the State to complete the said process and take a call on whether
recognition must be granted to the respondent no. 1 village or not.
Non-adherence to this timeline would be viewed strictly.
74. We treat this matter as part heard. The Registry shall notify this
matter after a period of six months before this very Bench (J.B.
Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.) after obtaining appropriate orders
from Honourable the Chief Justice of India.

Result of the case: Part heard.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey