Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order On Kakiho Village Recognition | Directs Nagaland Government To Reassess Public Objections And Follow Due Process
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, in a significant judgment, addressed the complexities surrounding the recognition of a village in Nagaland. The Court held that the procedure for village recognition, as stipulated in Office Memorandums (O.M.s) dated 22.03.1996 and 01.10.2005, was not fully complied with in the case of Kakiho Village (respondent no. 1). Consequently, the Court set aside certain observations made by the Gauhati High Court regarding compliance with these O.M.s. The Supreme Court directed the State authorities of Nagaland to re-issue a public notice concerning the recognition of the respondent no. 1 village. Furthermore, the State has been mandated to exhaustively consider all objections, including those from the Old Jalukai Village Council (appellant), and to make a final decision on the recognition within a period of six months from the date of the judgment, May 23, 2025. The Court also determined that the pre-existing inter-district boundary dispute did not have a direct nexus with the issue of the village's recognition.
The dispute originated from the proposed recognition of Kakiho Village, affiliated with the 'Sumi' tribe, which was allegedly established on September 1, 2007, by its Head Gaobura-cum-Council Chairman. The appellant, Old Jalukai Village Council, contended that Kakiho Village was being established on its ancestral land, located in the Jalukai sub-division, which was initially part of Kohima District and later Peren District. Conversely, Kakiho Village maintained it fell within the Dhansiripar sub-division of Dimapur District.
The process for village recognition in Nagaland is governed by customary traditions and specific O.M.s issued by the State. The O.M. dated 22.03.1996 laid down criteria including a minimum of 50 houses and a population of 250, sufficient land, indigenous inhabitants, and significantly, a 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) from the parent village if the new village was constituted on its ancestral land. Condition (v) of this O.M. stipulated that if a new village is formed by members of more than one village on the ancestral land of a parent village, an NOC from the parent village's Council Chairman, indicating boundaries, is mandatory.
An inter-district boundary dispute between Kohima (later Peren) and Dimapur districts led to the formation of the Ezong Committee on September 26, 2000. This committee, in its report dated May 28, 2002, recommended that recognition of new villages in disputed areas be considered only after the boundary demarcation was finalized. It also noted the general preference for placing 'Sumi' tribe villages under Dimapur District and 'Zeliangrong' tribe villages (like the appellant) under Kohima/Peren District.
Subsequently, an O.M. dated 01.10.2005 introduced an additional requirement: a public notice by the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district, allowing 30 days for objections regarding the proposed village recognition, including its land area and boundaries.
Kakiho Village initiated its recognition process with an application on March 24, 2009. A spot verification report on September 10, 2009, indicated the village had 57 households, a population of 300, admeasured 1012 acres, and fell under Dhansiripar sub-division, Dimapur District, with no inter-boundary dispute with neighbouring villages. NOCs were reportedly obtained from its parent village (Khumishi 'A' Village in Zunheboto District) and neighbouring villages (Ghowoto and K. Xekiye).
On October 13, 2009, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, issued a public notice inviting objections. The appellant, Old Jalukai Village Council, raised an objection on October 16, 2009, claiming the land ancestrally belonged to them. The Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, requested further information from the appellant, which was reportedly provided on November 9, 2009. Despite this, on November 18, 2009, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, recommended Kakiho Village's recognition to the Commissioner, Nagaland.
A State Cabinet meeting on December 14, 2011, approved the recognition of 34 villages, but for Kakiho Village (listed at Sl. No. 23) and five others, recognition was subject to a joint verification by the Deputy Commissioners of Peren and Dimapur. This joint verification was conducted on March 8, 2012. The Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, on July 26, 2012, reported that Kakiho Village was within Dimapur District. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Peren, on August 23, 2012, refrained from a conclusive opinion, stating no further comments until the inter-district boundary dispute was settled. Consequently, the Commissioner, Nagaland, on November 5, 2012, suggested keeping Kakiho Village's recognition in abeyance.
A consultation meeting on June 10, 2013, reiterated deferring Kakiho Village's recognition. The Ezong Committee report was published for public objections on September 20, 2013. On March 5, 2014, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Dhansiripar, issued an administrative approval certificate for Kakiho Village's recognition, noting no objections.
Kakiho Village filed Writ Petition (C) No. 65(K) of 2014 before the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, seeking its recognition. The Single Judge, on April 21, 2015, directed the State to issue formal recognition orders within three months, finding all criteria met and the inter-district boundary dispute irrelevant. The State's Writ Appeal No. 6(K) of 2015 resulted in the Division Bench, on October 7, 2015 (the impugned decision), extending the time for recognition by four months, acknowledging the sensitivity due to the village being on the boundary of districts inhabited by different tribes. The appellant, Old Jalukai Village Council, not being a party to the High Court proceedings, approached the Supreme Court.
The appellant argued before the Supreme Court that it was a necessary party, that village recognition is an executive decision, and that the High Court erred in issuing a mandamus. It stated the customary requirement of an NOC from the ancestral village, citing the O.M. of 1996 and Article 371A of the Constitution, which protects Naga customary laws regarding land. The appellant claimed Kakiho Village was an encroachment on its ancestral land and pointed to a prior eviction order dated April 7, 2005, against Kakiho villagers.
Respondent nos. 1 and 2 (Kakiho Village and its Chairman) contended the appellant was not a necessary party as its objections were nullified for lack of substantiation. They argued Kakiho Village was established on self-acquired land donated via other villages and had complied with all O.M. requirements. They asserted that Article 371A could not abridge fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21, which were being infringed due to non-recognition, leading to denial of developmental schemes.
The State of Nagaland submitted that the Ezong Committee had recommended deferring recognition in disputed areas. It stated ongoing efforts to resolve the inter-district boundary dispute, including the formation of a Cabinet Sub-Committee whose report was placed before the cabinet on July 13, 2021, leading to the creation of Chumoukedima District (meaning the dispute now lies between Peren and Chumoukedima districts). The State expressed a desire for amicable settlement to avoid inter-community unrest.
The Supreme Court first examined whether all necessary conditions for recognition as per the O.M.s dated 22.03.1996 and 01.10.2005 were fulfilled. The Court referred to Article 371A of the Constitution, which grants special provisions to Nagaland concerning its religious or social practices, Naga customary law, and ownership and transfer of land. The Court noted, “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.”
The Court examined Section 3 of the Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act, 1978, which defines a 'Village' and requires that land in the area belong to its population or be given to them by the lawful owner, and that the village be established according to customary practices. The Court stated, “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.”
Regarding the O.M.s, the Court observed that they “mirror and codify the existing customs pertaining to village recognition in the State.” The Court stated Condition (v) of the 1996 O.M. requiring an NOC from the parent village if a new village is on its ancestral land. The O.M. of 2005, requiring a public notice for objections, was seen to “place the idea of mutual consent from all concerned parties at the forefront.” The Court reasoned, “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... 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.”
Critically, the Court addressed the appellant's objection: “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.” The Court found it “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 Court further stated, “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... 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.”
The Court clarified the State's responsibility: “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.”
On the issue of the inter-district boundary dispute, the Court noted the Ezong Committee's 2002 recommendation to defer recognition of new villages in disputed areas. However, the Court also observed that the Cabinet decision of December 14, 2011, for Kakiho Village was subject only to joint verification, which was completed. The Court then considered the State's reliance on this dispute. It referred to the judicial policy of non-interference with Cabinet decisions or policy matters, stating, “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.”
However, the Court then examined the impact of a more recent Cabinet Sub-Committee report submitted on July 13, 2021. The Court observed, “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.” Furthermore, “A careful perusal of the same reveals that the respondent no. 1 village does not fall within the said buffer-zone/area” demarcated by the 2021 Sub-Committee.
Based on this, the Court stated, “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.” The Court found the State's delay perplexing: “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.”
The Court acknowledged the difficulties faced by the unrecognized village: “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 permanent structures.”
Regarding the arguments on fundamental rights versus customary practices under Article 371A, the Court observed, “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 Court identified the core grievance as “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.”
In its concluding part, the Supreme Court issued specific directives to the State authorities. The Court first determined that the procedural requirements for village recognition had not been met. It was stated, “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, the Court definitively concluded on the relevance of the boundary dispute, stating, “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.”
Consequently, the Supreme Court addressed the High Court's earlier findings. The judgment recorded, “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.”
The core directive to the State authorities involves a comprehensive re-examination of the recognition proposal. The Court ordered, “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 strict timeline was imposed for the completion of this process. The Court directed, “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.” Underscoring the seriousness of this timeframe, the Court added a cautionary note: “non-adherence to this timeline would be viewed strictly.”
Finally, the Supreme Court indicated its continued oversight of the matter. The judgment stated, “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.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Parthiv K. Goswami, Sr. Adv.; Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR; Ms. Atiga Singh, Adv.; Ms. Apurva Sachdev, Adv.; Mr. Piyush Vyas, Adv.; Ms. Purvat Wali, Adv.; Mr. Abhishek Jaiswal, Adv.
For the Respondents: Ms. Renuka Sahu, AOR; Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv.; Mr. K.N. Balgopal, Sr. Adv.; Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR; Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv.; Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv.; Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv.
Case Title: Old Jalukai Village Council Versus Kakiho Village & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. ______ of 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 9897 of 2016)
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan
[Read/Download order]
