Supreme Court Remands Village Recognition Matter to Nagaland State — “NOC from Parent Village Must Be Considered Before Formal Recognition”

---

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the Gauhati High Court (Single Judge and Division Bench) which had directed the State Government to issue a formal recognition order for the respondent village. The apex court remanded the matter back to the State of Nagaland to consider whether a “No Objection Certificate” (NOC) from the appellant (parent) village is a necessary condition for recognition. The Court held:

“The process for the recognition of a village… is rooted in customary practices and statutory provisions, and hence, must be strictly adhered to.”

The Court directed the State to consider the objections of the appellant village and determine the necessity of its NOC before any formal recognition of the respondent village can be issued.

---

Facts

• The case arose from a dispute regarding recognition of a newly established village in Nagaland, whose recognition had been directed by the Gauhati High Court.
• The appellant village objected to the recognition, claiming that the new village was established on its ancestral land and therefore required its consent.
• Two Office Memoranda (O.M.)—dated 22.03.1996 and 01.10.2005—lay down criteria for recognition, including obtaining NOCs from neighbouring or parent villages.
• A boundary dispute also existed between the Peren and Dimapur districts of Nagaland, further complicating the recognition process.
• Despite objections, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, had forwarded a recommendation for recognition to the State Government in 2009.
• The Cabinet initially approved the recognition in 2011, subject to joint verification by Deputy Commissioners of both districts. This verification took place, but the Deputy Commissioner, Peren, expressed inability to comment until the boundary issue was resolved.
• The High Court found no merit in the inter-district boundary objection and directed the State to issue the recognition within 3 months, later extended by another 4 months by the Division Bench.

---

Issues

1. Whether the respondent village had complied with all criteria for recognition under the O.M.s of 1996 and 2005.
2. Whether the existence of an inter-district boundary dispute justified withholding formal recognition.

---

Petitioner’s Arguments (Appellant Village)

• The appellant was a necessary party and was not heard before the High Court, violating natural justice.
• Establishment of a new village on ancestral land without a NOC from the parent village violates customary practices and statutory conditions under the 1996 O.M. and Section 3 of the Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act, 1978.
• The appellant furnished objections within the 30-day period after the public notice and submitted relevant documents, including a 1921-23 British Survey Map.
• Recognition without the appellant’s consent would violate Article 371A of the Constitution, which protects customary laws of Nagaland.
• Eviction orders had earlier been passed against the respondent village for illegal encroachment.
• Unrecognised status does not deprive villagers of all benefits, as they can access facilities via their parent village.

---

Respondent’s Arguments

• The appellant’s objection was invalidated due to failure to provide sufficient proof.
• There are 16 other villages between the respondent and appellant, making claims of ancestral overlap implausible.
• All required formalities under the O.M.s were fulfilled:
  • NOCs from neighbouring villages.
  • Survey and public notice.
  • Cabinet approval and joint verification.
• The inter-district boundary dispute is irrelevant to village recognition, especially since the land was self-acquired.
• Non-recognition denies residents access to essential services, violating Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
• Article 371A cannot be used to undermine fundamental rights.

---

Analysis of the Law

• Article 371A grants Nagaland autonomy over customary practices, including land ownership and village recognition.
• Section 3 of the 1978 Act and the 1996 O.M. require a village to:
  • Be established per customary practices.
  • Own or be granted the land by lawful owners or the government.
• Recognition involves fulfilling conditions like:
  • Population and household size.
  • Survey and boundary mapping.
  • NOCs from parent and neighbouring villages.
• The 2005 O.M. mandates a 30-day public notice period, during which objections must be heard and adjudicated.
• The Court emphasized that these objections cannot be ignored or brushed aside:

“Otherwise, the very object of issuing a public notice would be vitiated.”

• The State failed to determine whether the appellant’s NOC was a pre-condition for recognition despite the objection being raised in time.

---

Precedent Analysis

• The Court relied on the purpose and structure of Article 371A and the judgment of Gauhati High Court in Sabeituo Mechulho, emphasizing the constitutional sanctity of customary laws.
• Cited legislative history, including Rajya Sabha debates and statements by Prime Minister Nehru, to reinforce the autonomy granted to Nagaland on village governance.

---

Court’s Reasoning

• Recognition of villages must follow both statutory and customary requirements.
• The role of NOCs, especially from parent villages, is central to ensuring peaceful coexistence and avoiding inter-tribal conflict.
• State authorities must determine whether the appellant’s consent is a mandatory requirement under customary law.
• The High Court erred in directing immediate recognition without resolving this crucial issue.

“It is the bounden duty of the State… to appropriately consider any and all such objections… Otherwise, the very object of issuing a public notice would be vitiated.”

---

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s directions.
• The matter was remanded to the State Government to:
  • Examine whether the appellant’s NOC is a pre-condition.
  • Decide the recognition issue afresh based on that determination.
  • If NOC is not needed, proceed with recognition; if it is needed, facilitate a dialogue between the two villages for resolution.

“Only in the instance that the said question is answered in the affirmative, would the respondent village be required to initiate conversation with representatives of the appellant…”

---

Implications

• Reinforces the importance of customary law under Article 371A.
• Affirms procedural fairness in administrative decisions involving community rights.
• Establishes that objections in public notices cannot be summarily dismissed.
• Offers a path for dispute resolution via tribal councils under Section 26 of the 1978 Act.

Also Read – Supreme Court Affirms Firm’s Sole Ownership Over Disputed Hotel Property — “Property Brought into Partnership Ceases to Be Individual Asset”: Relinquishment Deed Validly Reaffirmed Intent Under Section 14 of Partnership Act