LexOLD JALUKAI VILLAGE COUNCIL versus KAKIHO VILLAGE & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2658 : 2025 INSC 766 Old Jalukai Village Council v. Kakiho Village & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7380 of 2025) 23 May 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether it could be said that the respondent no.1-village had fulfilled all the necessary conditions/criteria for the issuance of formal order(s) of recognition as per the O.M.s dated 22.03.1996 and 01.10.2005 respectively, especially in light of the fact that the appellant had raised objections to the Public Notice dated 13.10.2009; whether the existence of an “inter-district boundary dispute” was a valid reason to keep the recognition of the respondent no. 1 village in abeyance? Headnotes† Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act, 1978 – s.3– In Nagaland, for the establishment of a new village on a land which ancestrally belongs to another village, the prevailing custom requires a ‘No Objection Certificate’ of the parent/ ancestral village – Said custom is recognized in the O.M. dated 22.03.1996 – Government of Nagaland issued another O.M. dated 01.10.2005 which introduced an additional criteria/condition in the process of village recognition i.e., the requirement of a public notice providing a 30 day period to the public to register their objections, if any, regarding the specific village which is sought to be recognised – Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the judgment of the Single Judge directing the State authorities to take steps for the issuance of formal order(s) for the recognition of the respondent no. 1 village – Whether all the necessary conditions/criteria for the issuance of formal order(s) of recognition of the respondent no.1-village as per the O.M.’s dated 22.03.1996 and 01.10.2005 respectively were fulfilled: Held: 1.1 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. [Para 49] * Author [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2659 Old Jalukai Village Council v. Kakiho Village & Ors. 1.2 In the present case, the said public notice was issued on 13.10.2009 and vide communication dated 16.10.2009, the appellant had raised its objections to the recognition of the respondent no. 1 village by contending that the respondent no. 1 village is in fact sought to be established on their land – The objection is said to have also been published in a local daily on 18.10.2009 – The Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur vide its letter dated 08.11.2009 had directed the appellant to furnish more comprehensive details along with the relevant boundaries and records to incidate as to how the respondent no. 1 village would fall within their land – The authorities further stipulated that, if the same is not provided within a period of 7 days, their objection dated 16.10.2009 would stand nullified. [Para 49] 1.3 On the ensuing day i.e., on 09.11.2009, the appellant sent a reply providing details supporting their claim to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur – It is 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. [Para 49] 1.4 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, it cannot 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. [Para 49] 1.5 The procedure envisaged in the two O.M.’s dated 22.03.1996 and 01.10.2005 respectively, was not complied with in the present case – Furthermore, the inter-district boundary dispute had no nexus whatsoever with the issue of recognition of the respondent no. 1 village – The decision of the High Court insofar as the observations made regarding the compliance with the aforesaid two
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.