Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Direction To Recognise Kakiho Village, Directs Nagaland Govt To Hear Public Objections Again

The Supreme Court on May 23 ordered a fresh issuance of the process for the initiation of recognition of the Kakiho Village by the Nagaland State Government. In this case, the Court set aside the Gauhati High Court's order which had directed the State Government to recognise Kakiho Village within 3 months on the ground that the requirements laid down in the two official memoranda of the State Government were not fulfilled. 

"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 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. Non-adherence to this timeline would be viewed strictly."

The criteria for village recognition not fulfilled 

As per the customs prevailing in Nagaland, a village ancestrally owning such a land has to accord its consent by way of a 'No Objection Certificate' to the new village which is sought to be established on its land. This was recognised through an official memorandum dated March 22, 1996, issued by the State of Nagaland.

Another official memorandum issued by the Government on October 10, 2005, introduced a new additional condition for village recognition, the requirement of a public notice providing 30 days to the public to register their objections.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held that the conditions/criteria laid down in the two memoranda, especially the one issued in 2005, were not fulfilled. This is because although a public notice was issued and the Appellant filed its objection, it was not clear to what extent the objections raised by the Appellant (Jalukai Village Council) were considered by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, before issuing the proposal for recognition of the Kakiho Village. 

"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."

Another issue that prevailed in this case was that at the time when Kakiho village was sought to be recognised, an inter-boundary dispute arose between Kohima (where Appellant village is located) and Dimapur (where respondent village is allegedly located) districts.

Inter-state boundary dispute has nothing to do with village recognition 

Broad consensus was to place all villages affiliated with the 'Sumi' tribe in the Dimapur district and those affiliated with the 'Zeliangrong' tribe under the Kohima (Peren now) district. 

The 'Ezong Committee' constituted by the Government of Nagaland to submit their recommendations in regards to the inter-State dispute had submitted that the issue of recognition of new villages existing in the dispute area shall only be decided after boundary demarcation between two district was finalised. 

It is the case of the Appellant that the said village falls within the bounds of their ancestral land, that is Kohima district, while the Respondent 1. and 2. contended that their village falls within another district altogether, that is, the Dhansiripar sub-division of the Dimapar District. The process for village recognition, including public notice, was initiated, and despite an objection from the present Appellant, it was recommended that the village be recognised under the Dhansiripar sub-division of the Dimapur district. 

This issue was raised in a writ petition before the High Court, which observed that the inter-district boundary dispute has no bearing on the recognition of the Respondent's village. This was then appealed by the State before a division bench, which extended the time limit for the issuance of formal order of recognition of the Respondent's village.

On this, the Court said: "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."

This matter will be created as part-heard and the Court will hear it after six months.

Case Details: OLD JALUKAI VILLAGE COUNCIL v. KAKIHO VILLAGE AND ORS.|SLP(C) No. 9897/2016

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 632

Click Here To Read Order