Page No.# 1/8 GAHC020004762024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/180/2024 SHRI NEIWETSOLO AKAMI S/O SHRI DICHULO AKAMI R/O LOSAMI VILLAGFE PHEK NAGALAND P.NO. 8974852533 VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 10 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE HOME COMMISSIONER NAGALAND 2:DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PHEK NAGALAND 3:SHRI KUVEDUTI LUZAPHUHU VILLAGE PHEK NAGALAND 4:SHRI VECHIZO LUZAPHUHU VILLAGE PHEK NAGALAND 5:SHRI NUVESO LUZAPHUHU VILLAGE PHEK NAGALAND 6:SHRI WEKHALHI AKAMI LOSAMI VILLAGE PHEK NAGALAND 7:LOSAMI VILLAGE COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN PHEK NAGALAND Page No.# 2/8 8:LUZAPHUHU VILLAGE COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN PHEK NAGALAND 9:KEZUWELO AKAMI SESSIONAL CONVENER JOINT COURT LOSAMI VILLAGE PHEK NAGALAND 10:KHUSUZO KHAMO SESSIONAL CONVENER JOINT COURTLOZAPHUHU VILLAGE PHEK NAGALAND 11:MEWE MEKRISUH SESSIONAL CONVENER JOINT COURT LOSAMI VILLAGE PHEK NAGALAN Advocate for the Petitioner : TAKA KICHU, Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, BEFORE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 21.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Taka Kichu, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Angami, the learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. None has appeared for the private respondents. On perusal of the records, it appears that as against respondent Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, the notices were duly sent by this Court and by order dated 04.10.2024, this Court held that the notices were duly served of the said respondents. As against respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 6, the Page No.# 3/8 notices were published through paper publication and this Court by order dated 26.01.2024 has held that the notices were duly served on the said respondents. 3. By filing this petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 21.02.2021 passed in a joint court session of Losami Village Council and Lozaphuhu Village Council. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner owns a plot of land known as Tida Jhum land (Chida Jhum Field) from one Shri. K. K. Chakhesang for an amount of Rs. 20,000/- by executing a sale deed on 03.05.2021. The area of the said land is 3,85,000 square feet. 5. The petitioner used the land for cultivation and the whole plot of land was free from all encumbrances. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the year 2020, the State Government surveyed the land of the petitioner for construction of National Highway No. 29 (NH-150) two lane construction and for the same purpose, the land of entire land of portion has been acquired by the State Government. 6. However, after the acquisition of the said land for the said purpose, the private respondents started claiming ownership over the land of the petitioner, when the compensation amount for acquisition of the said land was to be released by the Deputy Commissioner. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the complaints of the private respondents, the Village Council of Losami Village and Lozaphuhu Village had a joint court meeting and passed an order on 21.02.2021, which is impugned in this instant petition, wherein it was resolved as follows: Page No.# 4/8 “1. The Joint Court resolved that the Compensation money from Lozakeri Bridge Chainage length 111+640 to 113+230CL shall be equally distributed to all the dispute land owners. 2. The Joint Court also resolved that the above National Highway shall be owned by by Lozaphuhu and below National Highway shall be owned by Losami. 3. The Joint Court also resolved that the distributed portion that have any dispute shall be settled by their respective Village Councils.” 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the land, which was acquired by the State Government for construction of National Highway No. 29 and the Losami Village Council and Lozaphuhu Village Council acted beyond jurisdiction in passing the impugned order in a joint court meeting when they don't have the jurisdiction to decide the dispute of such nature. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the dispute being in the nature of civil dispute only the categories of courts recognized in Rule 23 of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, 1937, are empowered to decide such dispute. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the dispute in the instant case pertains to more than two village councils, the appropriate forum under the law would be only any of the following categories of the Courts: Page No.# 5/8 i. Deputy Commissioner; ii. Additional Deputy Commissioner; and iii. Assistant to Deputy Commissioner. 11. The other Courts or Authorities, which are not recommended under Rule 23 of the Rules of Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, 1937 do not have the jurisdiction to decide a dispute of such nature. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the total compensation amount of Rs. 8,37,124/- has been ascertained as against acquisition of the land of the petitioner for construction of the National Highway No. 29. However, by an order of this Court passed on 23.08.2024, an interim stay has been granted not to disburse the said amount. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the order passed in joint court session of Losami Village Council and Lozaphuhu Village Council is against the provisions of Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, 1937 as well as beyond jurisdiction of the said village council, the same is required to be set aside and the Deputy Commissioner may be directed to decide the dispute raised by the private respondents. 14. On the other hand, Mr. K. Angami, the learned Senior Government Advocate has also submitted that as per the Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act, 1978, as amended up-to-date the Section 14 (2) of the said Act, provides that the dispute between/among villages, if the villages are within the same district, same has to be decided by the Deputy Commissioner, and for a Page No.# 6/8 different district, it has to be decided by the Commissioner. He, therefore, submits that apparently the impugned order dated 21.02.2021 appears to be without jurisdiction. 15. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and have gone through the materials available on records. 16. The petitioner in this case has claimed to be the owner of the disputed land on the basis of a sale deed, which was executed on 03.05.2021, by one Shri. K. K. Chakhesang, whom the petitioner claims to be the original owner of the disputed land. 17. The petitioner is the member of Losami Village Council and some of the private respondents, who are claiming ownership over the disputed land, belong to Lozaphuhu Village Council. 18. It is also pertinent to mention that both the villages, namely, Losami Village Council and Lozaphuhu Village Council are situated in the Phek district. 19. The Rule 23 of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, 1937, provides as follows: “23. The Administration of Civil Justice in the State of Nagaland is entrusted to the Deputy Commissioner, Additional Deputy Commissioner Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Customary Courts constituted under Chapter IVA of the Rules, Dobasis and other village authority may be appointed by the State Government from time to time by Notification in the Official Gazette. Page No.# 7/8 Provided that the Government of Nagaland shall be empowered to invest any officer of the State Government having judicial experience with the powers of the Deputy Commissioner for the trial of any particular civil case or cases and the Officer so invested with the powers of the Deputy Commissioner shall be designated as Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) and shall exercise all the powers of the Deputy Commissioner in the behalf.” 20. On perusal of the Section 14(2) of the Nagaland Village and Area Council Act, 1978, it has been provided as follows: “In case of disputes between/among villages, the Deputy Commissioner, if the villages fall within the same district, or the commissioner, Nagaland, if the villages fall within different districts, may take up the matter for settlement, or refer the dispute to the appropriate authorities for settlement.” 21. On perusal of the aforesaid provisions of the relevant Rules, it is apparent that only six categories of authorities are recognized, who may be entrusted with the Administration of Civil Justice in the State of Nagaland, namely, (a) Deputy Commissioner; (b) Additional Page No.# 8/8 Deputy Commissioner; (c) Assistant Deputy Commissioner; (d) Customary Courts- Dobasis Courts; (e) Village Authority; and (f) Tribal Court. 22. It also appears from the Section 14(2) of the Village and Area Council Act, 1978, that when the dispute is between/among different villages, which are within the same district, the matter may be taken up for settlement by the Deputy Commissioner of the said district. 23. Thus, from the above provisions, it appears that by passing the impugned order dated 21.02.2021, in a joint court session of Losami Village Council and Lozaphuhu Village Council, the said village councils have acted beyond jurisdiction, and the impugned order is unsustainable in law, in view of the aforementioned provisions. The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set aside, and this Court, accordingly, set aside the impugned order dated 21.02.2021 as the same has been passed without the jurisdiction. 24. The aggrieved parties may approach the appropriate forum, having jurisdiction over the matter, which in this case is the Deputy Commissioner, Phek, for redressal of their grievance. If any of the party approaches the Deputy Commissioner, Phek, the said dispute shall be resolved by him expeditiously as per the provisions of relevant Rules and the laws in this regard. 25. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant