Smti Neikhrietuonuo v. The State of Nagaland and 3 Ors

ORDER

21.11.2023

Heard Mr. I.A. Pongener, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. Livika, learned Government Advocate for the State respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3; and N. Longkumer, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

¶2In these two Civil Revision Petition Nos. 5/2021 and Page No.# 3/5 8/2021, filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner has put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the impugned communication/letter dated 15.04.2021, passed by the Head DB District Customary Court, Kohima. As the issues raised in both the petitions are identical, it is proposed to dispose of the same by a common order.

¶3Mr. Pongener, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of a plot of land gifted by her grandfather and as such, she was enjoying the said plot of land and thereafter, a dispute arose between her and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, namely, Kedukei Chielie and Neihelhoulie, respectively and then she has reported the matter to Village Council and thereafter, the Village Council has decided the issue in favour of the petitioner and thereafter, the respondents have preferred an appeal before the Dobashi Court, Kohima. Mr. Pongener further submits that after preferred the appeal, the Dobashi Court has reversed the judgment of the Village Council and decreed the land in favour of a stranger, who was not a party to the said proceeding. Referring to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court, in the Writ Petition No. 164/2017, dated 04.12.2022, Mr. Pongener submits that while answering the issue as to "[i] whether any decisions passed by the Village Council can be heard an appeal by the Dobashi Court?" referred to it, has held that "thus a plain reading of the provisions of Rule 31, does, in anyway give authority to the DC or his Assistants to forward cases of appeal to any other court but to the Panchayat. Therefore, an appeal forwarded to the court of Dobashis from the decisions of the Village Council is dehors the provision of the Appeal Rule 1937 Act" and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case, the Dobashi Page No.# 4/5 Court cannot hear an appeal against a decision passed by the Village Council. Mr. Pongener also submits in view of the settled position of law, the impugned communication/letter dated

15.04.2021, issued by the Head DB District Customary Court, Kohima is not maintainable and therefore, it is contended to set aside the same and allow this petition.

¶4Mr. Longkumer, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submits that in view of the settled proposition of law set by a Division Bench of this Court, in the Writ Petition No. 164/2017, dated 04.12.2022, he has no objection, if the impugned communication/letter dated 15.04.2021, issued by the Head DB District Customary Court, Kohima is set aside. However, Mr. Longkumer submits that liberty may be granted to him to approach appropriate forum, by filing appropriate petition.

¶5Ms. Livika, learned Government Advocate for the State respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 submits that the State is not a necessary party herein this case and as such, she has not point to argue before this Court.

¶6Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the Writ Petition No. 164/2017, dated 04.12.2022.

¶7It appears from the decision dated 04.12.2022, in Writ Petition No. 164/2017, that Dobashi Court cannot hear an appeal from a decision of the Village Council and it further appears from the Rule 31 of the Appeal Rules of 1937 that it does not provide for the same. Page No.# 5/5

¶8In view of above and also in view of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is inclined to allow this petition by setting aside the impugned communication/letter dated 15.04.2021, issued by the Head DB District Customary Court, Kohima. However, liberty will remain with the respondents to seek appropriate remedy before appropriate forum, by filing appropriate petition.

¶9In terms of above, both these Civil Revision Petitions stand disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/5 GAHC020004442021 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : C. REVN/8/2021 SMTI NEIKHRIETUONUO KEPFU MERIEMA VILLAGE, KOHIMA NAGALAND VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER, NAGALAND, KOHIMA 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOHIMA NAGALAND 3:THE HEAD DOBASHI COURT KOHIMA-NAGALAND 4:SMTI KEDUKEI CHIELIE R/O MERIEMA KOHIMA- NAGALAND 5:SHRI NEIHELHOULIE R/O MERIEMA VILLAGE KOHIMA- NAGALAND Advocate for the Petitioner : I. APOK PONGENER Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL Linked Case : C. REVN/5/2021 SMTI NEIKHRIETUONUO MERIEMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND Page No.# 2/5 VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER NAGALAND KOHIMA 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOHIMA NAGALAND 3:THE HEAD DOBASHI DOBASHIS COURT KOHIMA NAGALAND 4:SMTI KEDUOKIE-U CHIELIE R/O MERIEMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND ------------ Advocate for : I. APOK PONGENER Advocate for : GOVT ADV NL appearing for THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN