JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.C. Sarma, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B.C. Talukdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and Mr. I. Imsong, the learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 2. The present Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 22.02.2016 passed by the learned Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Dimapur, Nagaland (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Civil Suit No. 3/2009 whereby the said suit of the Appellant was dismissed. 3. The Appellant as Plaintiff had filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 3/2009 before the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dimapur at Nagaland. 4. It is the case of the Plaintiff in the said suit that in the year 1972, the Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 disturbed the peaceful possession of the Village land in the Thilixu Village. The Head G.B. of the said Thilixu Village filed a suit being Title Suit No. 13/1973 before the learned Court of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur seeking declaration of their right and title over the Village land and for injunction restraining the Government of Nagaland and other officers under the State. The said suit was decreed by the learned Court of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur in favour of the Head G.B., Hevikhu Sema and others vide the Judgment and Order dated 08.07.1979 declaring the right and title over the suit land and permanently restrained the Defendants in the suit from evicting the Plaintiff from the suit land. There was an Appeal filed thereagainst, but nothing has been mentioned in the plaint as regards what happened in the said Appeal. 5. Be that as it may, the said Thilixu Village established a new Village in the name of Thilixu-B Village on 16.01.2001 with specific boundaries. It is mentioned in the plaint that in terms with the Agreement dated 16.09.2000 executed between the Plaintiff and the Head G.B. and Chairman of the original Thilixu Village, the boundary of the new Thilixu-B Village was outside the notified area of the Rangapahar Reserved Forest and Zoological Park. It is mentioned in the plaint that in terms with the Agreement dated 16.09.2000 executed between the Plaintiff and the Head G.B. and Chairman of the original Thilixu Village, the boundary of the new Thilixu-B Village was outside the notified area of the Rangapahar Reserved Forest and Zoological Park. It is further mentioned in the plaint that the Government of Nagaland vide Notification dated 17.06.1986 had declared an area of 470 hectares of land as Rangapahar Wildlife Sanctuary and the Rangapahar Wildlife Sanctuary was outside the boundary of Thilixu-B Village. 6. On 02.12.2003, a notice was issued by the In-Charge of the Rangapahar Wildlife Sanctuary claiming the land of the Plaintiff Village to be under the notified area as earmarked for establishing the Rangapahar Wildlife Sanctuary/Zoological Park. Thereafter, in the month of January, 2005, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur issued an order permitting the Forest Department to undertake development works on the land in possession of the Thilixu-B Village. 7. The Plaintiff, being aggrieved by such actions taken by the In-Charge of the Rangapahar Wildlife Sanctuary/Zoological Park, as well as by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, filed 2 (two) writ petitions before this Court which were registered and numbered as WP(C) No. 8(K)/2004 and WP(C) No. 23(K)/05 and one C.M.C. No. 89(K)/05 against the Defendants challenging the order dated 02.12.2003 issued by the In-Charge, Rangapahar Wildlife Sanctuary as well as the order issued in the month of January, 2005 by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur permitting the Forest Department to undertake development works over the Thilixu-B Village. The said 2 (two) writ petitions along with the C.M.C. were disposed of by this Court vide the common Judgment and Order dated 29.09.2005 with an observation that the Plaintiff may approach the appropriate Civil Forum, if so advised, for redressal of the grievances. 8. Thereupon, the Plaintiff filed a suit in the year 2005 before the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner (J) Dimapur, Nagaland against the Defendants, but the plaint was returned due to non- service of statutory notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Plaintiff thereafter served a notice on 08.08.2008 under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 upon the Defendants by registered post. The Plaintiff thereafter served a notice on 08.08.2008 under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 upon the Defendants by registered post. Pursuant thereto, the suit was filed seeking declaration of the Plaintiff's right, title, and interest over the suit land mentioned in Schedule-A; delivery of khas possession of the Schedule-A land by evicting the Defendants, their men and materials from the Schedule-A land, to appoint a Survey Commissioner to demarcate the boundary of Schedule-A land and to grant permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their men and agents, from disturbing the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff over the Schedule-A land. 9. From the very description of the Schedule-A land, it is seen that it is bounded on the North by the Forest land (now Touluozoma Village) and on the East by the Rangapahar Forest Road. 10. The Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 in the said suit had jointly filed a written statement. In the said written statement, it is mentioned that there is no record to show that the Thilixu Village was established within the described boundaries with the permission from the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima in the year 1958. It was stated that the Thilixu Village was established in the present location by encroaching the Rangapahar Reserved Forest. It was further mentioned that the Rangapahar Forest was declared as Reserved Forest vide Notification No. 3808R/Dated 24.10.1916 and No. 58R/Dated 08.01.1924 respectively. It was also mentioned that Sri Thilixu Sema and others had encroached upon a portion of the Rangapahar Reserved Forest without authority, and a notice dated 04.05.1972 was served to the encroachers to vacate the encroached area. However, the encroachers continued to stay within the encroached area despite being served with the notice to vacate the area. It is under such circumstances, the encroachers were evicted from the Reserved Forest by the Defendants. As regards the Title Suit filed by the Thilixu Village represented by Head G.B., Sri Hevikhu Sema, against the Defendants, the land in question was measuring around 300 Acres and was bounded by: North: Land of Votsu Angami; East: I.B. Road; South: Sugar Mill area; West: Land of Ballo, Nullah and Forest Road. 11. It was further mentioned that a Civil Appeal there-against was filed, which was registered and numbered as Civil Appeal No. 1/87 and was pending disposal. 12. 11. It was further mentioned that a Civil Appeal there-against was filed, which was registered and numbered as Civil Appeal No. 1/87 and was pending disposal. 12. It was further mentioned in the said written statement that a group of people led by Sri Inaho Z. Yeptho, Assistant G.B. of Thilixu Village illegally encroached upon a part of the Rangapahar Reserved Forest and established the Village in the name and style of Thilixu New Village/Aghusheto Village within the Reserved Forest. It was denied that the land was donated by the Thilixu Village. The land in question is Reserved Forest and the Thilixu Village had no authority whatsoever either to donate or execute an Agreement with the encroachers to establish a new Village within the Reserved Forest. 13. It was further mentioned in the said written statement filed by the Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 that it is absurd to believe that Thilixu Village could establish Villages, i.e., (1) Thilixu Village; (2) Thilixu New Village/Aghusheto Village and (3) Thilixu ‘B’ Village from the decreetal area of 300 Acres. It was categorically denied that Thilixu ‘B’ Village or the Thilixu New Village/Aghusheto Village are part and parcel of the original Thilixu Village. It was also stated that the Thilixu Village had instituted Civil Suit being Civil Suit No. 17/05 against Sri Inaho Z. Yeptho and others, and the suit was still pending. It was further stated that a group of people led by Sri P. Viyiho Sema, self-styled Head G.B., and Sri Akalu Achumi, self-styled Chairman made an attempt to establish a new Village in the name and style of Thilixu ‘B’ Village within the Zoological Park by breaking the brick wall fencing constructed by the Defendants around the Zoological Park. However, the encroachers were evicted after this Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by them against the Defendants vide the Judgment dated 29.09.2005. It was also averred that the Government of Nagaland declared an area admeasuring 470 hectares of the Rangapahar Reserved Forest as Rangapahar Wildlife Sanctuary vide Notification dated 17.06.1986. The land claimed by the Plaintiff falls within the notified area and under such circumstances, the Plaintiff has no right whatsoever to claim the Reserved Forest for establishing a new Village. It was further mentioned that the land as described in Schedule-A is a part of the Rangapahar Reserved Forest. 14. The land claimed by the Plaintiff falls within the notified area and under such circumstances, the Plaintiff has no right whatsoever to claim the Reserved Forest for establishing a new Village. It was further mentioned that the land as described in Schedule-A is a part of the Rangapahar Reserved Forest. 14. The record reveals that the Proforma Defendant No. 6 had also filed a written statement wherein completely denied the case of the Plaintiff. It was mentioned in the said written statement filed by the Proforma Defendant No. 6 that on 16.09.2000 though a No Objection Certificate was issued to the Plaintiff enabling him to establish a Village within a portion of the Defendant's Village land, however, since the Plaintiff failed to utilize the land and allowed others to encroach the land, the Proforma Defendant issued declarations on 30.03.2004 and 13.12.2004 revoking the permission granted to the Plaintiff and the copies of the same were served on the Plaintiff as well as the authorities concerned which were accordingly acknowledged. It was also mentioned that the land allotted to the Plaintiff was disputed. It was averred that the Plaintiff never established any Village either within the disputed and/or undisputed land of the Defendant's Village, but is attempting to encroach the Rangapahar Wildlife Sanctuary, particularly the Zoological Park, by destroying the perimeter wall of the Zoo and it is because of which the authorities concerned have from time to time issued orders to restrain the encroachment and evicted the Plaintiff from the land. 15. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed as many as 9 (nine) issues. The said issues being relevant are reproduced herein under: “1. Whether the suit is maintainable? 2. Whether the permission given to the plaintiff to establish a village on 16.09.2000 by the Proforma Defendant No.6 was withdrawn on 30.03.04 and on 14.02.04. Whether the plaintiff is misusing the permission to occupy a different land? 3. Whether the suit land is a part of Rangapahar reserved forest which still exist? 4. Whether the plaintiff village is established as per agreement between the plaintiff and Proforma Defendant No.6 and whether the plaintiff village allowed to Defendant No.6 and Toulozoma Village to occupy the land of the plaintiff village? 5. 3. Whether the suit land is a part of Rangapahar reserved forest which still exist? 4. Whether the plaintiff village is established as per agreement between the plaintiff and Proforma Defendant No.6 and whether the plaintiff village allowed to Defendant No.6 and Toulozoma Village to occupy the land of the plaintiff village? 5. Whether the present Suit is barred in view of C.M.C No.6/06 in C.A N0.1/87 and other Civil Suit from filing in the instant Suit on the same subject? 6. Whether a status quo order dated 16.05.09 of the Hon’ble High Court over the suit land and a direction to the State government on letter dated 11.10.06. Whether further proceeding in present Suit amounts to interference of the said orders? 7. Whether it was legally permissible for the Performa Defendant to permit the plaintiff to establish Thilixu ‘B’ village over the land in question when there was already a pending dispute on the land? 8. Whether the plaintiff has any material point of time taken possession of the land or made effort to establish Thilixu ‘B’ village on the land of Performa Defendant? 9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief claim in present Suit?” 16. The records further reveals that on behalf of the Plaintiff, 6 (six) witnesses adduced evidence and 9 (nine) documents were exhibited. On behalf of the State Defendants, 3 (three) witnesses were examined and 4 (four) documents were exhibited. On behalf of the Proforma Defendant, 2 (two) witnesses were examined and 16 (sixteen) documents were exhibited. 17. The learned Trial Court vide the impugned Judgment and Decree decided all the issues against the Plaintiff and accordingly dismissed the suit. It is very relevant to take note of the discussion in respect to Issue No. 3 by the learned Trial Court, inasmuch as the said issue pertains to, as to whether, the suit land is a part of the Rangapahar Reserved Forest which still exists. After duly taking note of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court came to a categorical finding that the suit land, as claimed by the Plaintiff, falls within the notified area of the Zoological Park under the Rangapahar Reserved Forest. After duly taking note of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court came to a categorical finding that the suit land, as claimed by the Plaintiff, falls within the notified area of the Zoological Park under the Rangapahar Reserved Forest. The discussion on the issue No. 3 is of relevance, taking into account that if the Plaintiff seeks for a declaration as well as recovery of possession over the Schedule land which falls within the ambit of a Reserved Forest, not only the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 (for short, “the Regulation of 1891”), prohibits granting of such declaration as well as consequential reliefs, but also there is a bar under the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980 (for short, “the Act of 1980”) formerly known as the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. 18. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court take note of the grounds of objection taken in the Memo of Appeals. 19. From a perusal of the grounds of objection which has been taken, it is seen that the Appellant has taken various grounds of objection against the impugned Judgment and Decree. It is the opinion of this Court that taking into account the provisions of the Regulation of 1891 and the Act of 1980, the fundamental point for determination is: (i) Whether the learned Trial Court had erred in law as well as in facts in coming to a finding that the Schedule-A land wherein the Appellant has sought for declaration as well as consequential reliefs was a part of the Rangapahar Reserved Forest/Zoological Park? The aforesaid point for determination in the opinion of this Court would encompass the point for determination as to whether the Plaintiff would be entitled to a declaration of right, title and interest over the Schedule-A land. In addition to the above, another point for determination is: (ii) Whether the impugned Judgment and Decree calls for any interference? 20. The Plaintiff herein sought for declaration that the land described in Schedule-A to the plaint is the land of the Plaintiff, and further sought for consequential reliefs for recovery of possession, inasmuch as the Plaintiff was evicted from the suit land prior to the filing of the suit. The Schedule-A land has been defined in the plaint, and it was the claim of the Plaintiff that the said Schedule-A land was outside the Reserved Forest. The Schedule-A land has been defined in the plaint, and it was the claim of the Plaintiff that the said Schedule-A land was outside the Reserved Forest. It may not be out of place that from the very plaint, the Plaintiff recognizes the existence of the Reserved Forest. 21. It is very pertinent herein to mention that to declare a forest as a Reserved Forest, there is a requirement of issuance of a Notification in terms with the Regulation of 1891. Section 17 of the Regulation of 1891 stipulates the effect when a Notification is issued declaring a forest to be a Reserved Forest. It stipulates that the land vest in the State. It is also mentioned that the said Notification has to be published in the Official Gazette. Section 18 of the Regulation of 1891 stipulates that any right which existed prior to the issuance of the Notification stands extinguished. 22. Section 21 of the Regulation of 1891 further mandates that no right of any description shall be acquired in or over a Reserved Forest, except by succession or under grant or contract in writing made by, or with the previous sanction of the State Government or some person on whom such right, or power to create such right vested when the Notification under Section 17 of the Regulation of 1891 was published. It is observed that the Plaintiff had not produced any document to show that the rights of the Plaintiff were saved when the Notification in terms with Section 17 of the Regulation of 1891 was issued. 23. Section 22 of the Regulation of 1891 further mandates that no right as contained in Section 13, shall be alienated by way of grant, sale, lease, and mortgage, or otherwise without the previous sanction of the State Government. 24. This Court now finds it very pertinent to take note of that the Act of 1980, and more particularly, Section 2 which restricts on de-reservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose. 24. This Court now finds it very pertinent to take note of that the Act of 1980, and more particularly, Section 2 which restricts on de-reservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose. In view of the restrictions so contained in the Regulation of 1891, as well as in Section 2 of the Act of 1980, the question of creation of any right or declaration of a right or allowing the Plaintiff to carry out non-forest activity or setting up a Village would not be permissible if the land wherein the Plaintiff is seeking the declaration falls within the Reserved Forest. 25. It is seen from the records, and more particularly from the evidence adduced by the Plaintiff, that nothing could be shown to establish that the land on which the Plaintiff had set up its Village was outside the Rangapahar Reserved Forest. On the other hand, a perusal of the evidence of DW1 shows that approximately 10,611 Acres were declared as Rangapahar Reserved Forest vide Notification No. 3808R/dated 24.10.1916 and thereafter, an area admeasuring 21,768.4 Acres was again declared as Rangapahar Reserved Forest vide Notification No. 58R dated 08.01.1924. Further to that, vide another Notification dated 17.06.1986 a part of the Rangapahar Reserved Forest admeasuring 470 hectares were declared as Rangapahar Wildlife Sanctuary. The Defendant witness No. 1 further stated that the Rangapahar Reserved Forest was encroached by the encroachers except the present Zoological Park admeasuring 176 hectares. A brick wall was constructed around the Zoological Park. The records further reveal that the Notifications dated 24.10.1916, 08.01.1924 and 17.06.1986 were exhibited as Ex. D-1, Ex. D-2, and Ex. D-3 respectively. The map was also exhibited as Ex. D-4. There is not a single cross-examination made on the veracity of the said documents. There is not even a suggestion made that the land in which the Plaintiff seeks the declaration is outside the Reserved Forest area. 26. From the above, as the Plaintiff had sought for a declaration and the Plaintiff had failed to show that the Schedule-A land is outside the limits of the Reserved Forest which has been declared in the year 1916 and 1924 respectively vide Notifications duly published, it is the opinion of this Court that the learned Trial Court did not erred in law as well as on facts in deciding the issue No. 3. 27. 27. Now, taking into consideration the provisions of the Regulation of 1891 which was holding the field at the time when the Notifications were issued in the year 1916 and 1924, and the provision of Section 2 of the Act of 1980, it is the opinion of this Court that the Appellant/Plaintiff herein was not entitled to seek declaration of right, title, and interest in respect to the Schedule-A land as well as the other consequential reliefs as sought for. 28. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of another aspect, as would be seen from the records of the present case. This Court, vide an order dated 22.01.2019, in exercise of the powers under Order XLI Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, had framed an additional issue, which is: Whether the Plaintiff Village namely Thilixu “B” Village was “formed as per the prevailing customary laws and recognized as per the norms as applicable in the State of Nagaland?” 29. Upon framing the additional issue, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court remanded the said additional issue for a decision from the learned Trial Court by taking additional evidence. 30. In pursuance thereto, it is seen that the learned Trial Court vide order dated 24.01.2025, after permitting the parties to adduce additional evidence came to a categorical finding that the existing criteria/conditions for recognition of a Village in Nagaland is notified through the Office Memorandum dated 22.03.1996 of the Government of Nagaland, Home Department (General Administration Branch) has to be fulfilled. It is also observed that the Plaintiff has not been able to establish that the Thilixu ‘B’ Village is a recognized Village as per the norms applicable in the State of Nagaland, and moreover, no evidence was led to show that the Thilixu ‘B’ Village was formed as per the customary law. Accordingly, the Additional issue No. 10 which was framed by this Court was also decided in the negative and against the Plaintiff. 31. This Court has also duly taken note of the additional evidence which have been taken and it is the categorical case of the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff had only 29 houses whereas as per the Office Memorandum dated 22.03.1996 to be recognized as a Village, there should be a minimum of 50 houses with a population of not less than 250 people. This Court also takes note that during the cross-examination of the Plaintiff while adducing additional evidence, he had further stated that the said land had no houses, rather was used for agriculture purpose. It is further relevant to take note of that pursuant to the additional evidence being adduced by the Plaintiff to a specific query during his cross-examination, as to whether he knew that the land allotted to the Plaintiff by the Thilixu Village belongs to the Government, the Plaintiff answered that he did not know. He specifically mentioned thus: “when the land was initially allotted to me, I did not know that the land belongs to the Government. It was only in the year 2003, when they came for eviction, I came to know that it was a Government land”. The Plaintiff was further put to cross-examination as to in which year, did the Plaintiff establish the Thilixu ‘B’ Village. The Plaintiff stated that he established the Thilixu ‘B’ Village on 17.01.2001. In other words, when the Office Memorandum dated 22.03.1996 had come into force. To a specific question to him, as to whether the Village was recognized by the Government, the Plaintiff stated that the Government had not recognized the Plaintiff's Village. 32. Taking into account the above, it is the further opinion of this Court that there is no error in law or in fact in deciding the Additional issue No.10. 33. In view of the above, it is the opinion of this Court that both the points for determination so formulated have to be decided against the Appellant as the learned Trial Court neither erred in law or in fact in deciding the Issue No. 3 nor the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 22.02.2016 as well as the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court calls for interference. 34. Considering the above, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 22.02.2016 passed in Civil Suit No. 3/2009. Accordingly, the instant Appeal stands dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.11,000/-. 35. Records be returned to the learned Trial Court. 36. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.