Supreme Court Directs Re‑notice and Six‑Month Decision on Village Recognition After Finding Procedure Not Followed

A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard an appeal by Old Jalukai Village Council against the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench orders that had directed the State of Nagaland to issue formal recognition to a settlement called Kakiho (respondent no. 1). The principal issues related to whether the procedural criteria in the State Office Memoranda of 22.03.1996 and 01.10.2005 had been complied with and whether an inter‑district boundary dispute justified keeping recognition in abeyance.

The Court set aside the High Court’s findings on compliance with the prescribed procedure insofar as the High Court was not "alive to the case of the appellant", and directed the State to re‑issue a public notice and exhaustively consider all objections within six months. The Court recorded that recognition decisions engaged both customary considerations protected under Article 371A and statutory procedure under the Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act, 1978, but observed that executive decisions taken after due application of mind could not be lightly interfered with. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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." The judgment also recorded the Single Judge’s earlier observation that "the inter‑district boundary dispute would have no bearing insofar as the recognition of the petitioner's village is concerned."

Background The dispute arose after a settlement identified as Kakiho was said to have been constituted in 2007 and an application for recognition reached the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur in 2009. The State had codified village recognition criteria in an O.M. dated 22.03.1996 (requiring, inter alia, minimum houses and population, proof of land and "No Objection Certificate" from parent or neighbouring villages) and in an O.M. dated 01.10.2005 (mandating a public notice with 30 days for objections). A public notice was published on 13.10.2009 and Old Jalukai Village Council lodged objections on 16.10.2009 claiming Kakiho lay within its ancestral land; the Deputy Commissioner sought further particulars and the appellant supplied them.

A joint verification and related processes were undertaken, and the State Cabinet approved recognition of a list of villages subject to joint verification. The Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur reported that Kakiho fell in Dhansiripar subdivision of Dimapur; the Deputy Commissioner, Peren refrained from a conclusive comment and referenced an inter‑district boundary dispute that arose from an earlier Ezong Committee report (2002). The Commissioner’s office advised keeping recognition of certain villages in abeyance pending settlement of boundary demarcation. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed a writ petition; the Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court directed recognition within three months, holding that formalities had been complied with. The Division Bench extended that period by four months. The appellant contended it had not been impleaded, that its objections had not been properly considered, and that recognition would effect transfer of land ownership under customary law protected by Article 371A and the Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act, 1978 (Section 3).

The Supreme Court found that the prescribed procedure under the two O.M.’s had not been shown to have been complied with and that the inter‑district boundary dispute had no nexus to Kakiho’s recognition. The Court directed the State to re‑issue the public notice and to "exhaustively consider all the objections which may be raised from every quarter, including that of the appellant herein." The State was afforded six months to complete the process and take a final decision; non‑adherence would be viewed strictly. The matter was treated as part‑heard and the Registry was directed to list it before the same Bench after six months.

Case Details: Case No.: SLP(C) No. 9897 of 2016 (Arising out of Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2025) Case Title: Old Jalukai Village Council v. Kakiho Village & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Parthiv K. Goswami, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Ms. Renuka Sahu, Advocate (for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2) For the State: Ms. Enatoli Sema, Counsel for the State of Nagaland