State Must Carry Out Its Role As Administrator & Ensure Proper Governance Of Districts & Villages: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has emphasized that the State must carry out its role as an administrator and ensure proper governance of its districts and villages.

The Court emphasized thus in a Civil Appeal preferred by Old Jalukai Village Council, challenging the Judgment of the Gauhati High Court, which affirmed the Single Judge’s Judgment directing the State authorities to take steps for the issuance of formal orders for the recognition of the Kakiho Village within 3 months, being extended by another 4 months subsequently.

The two-Judge Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “We appreciate that the State has refrained from adopting a completely adversarial stand on the present issue but it must not be forgotten that the State is still duty bound to carry out its role as an administrator and ensure that the proper governance of its districts and villages do not suffer as a result of it embracing such a non-confrontational role instead. In the face of conflict, the State must delicately balance its function as a mediator but also as an authority while seamlessly morphing into either role as per the demands of the situation before itself.”

The Bench said that the Courts must also not bear the burden of what is a responsibility cast upon the State and entrusted to executive decision-making.

Senior Advocate Parthiv K. Goswami represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate K.N. Balgopal, AORs Renuka Sahu, and K. Enatoli Sema represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

It was the case of the Appellant that since the establishment and recognition of a new village on the ancestral land of another village results in the transfer of ownership of the said land to the newly created village, the prevailing custom requires the village ancestrally owning such land to accord their consent by way of a ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) to the new village which is sought to be established on their land. A boundary dispute arose between the districts of Kohima (where the Appellant village was located) and Dimapur (where the Respondent was allegedly located). An Ezong Committee was constituted by the Nagaland Government to work out and submit their recommendations as regards the demarcation of the inter-district boundary between the said two districts, with particular reference to the boundary between the Dhansiripar sub-division of the Dimapur District and the Jalukai sub-division of the Kohima District. A new district called Peren District has since been carved out of Kohima District and the Jalukai sub-division now falls under the Peren District.

The Committee decided to give due consideration in placing the villages associated with the ‘Sumi’ tribe under the Dimapur District and those associated with the ‘Zeliangrong’ tribe under the Kohima district as far as conveniently practicable and wherever the same was not possible, the boundary was to be demarcated strictly in accordance with administrative convenience. The Nagaland Government issued an Office Memorandum (OM) 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.

The Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) of the Dhansiripar sub-division issued a certificate of administrative approval for the recognition of the Respondent village while also recording that there were no objections against the recognition of the said village from any quarter. However, still having witnessed abysmal progress as regards its recognition, the Respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court seeking direction of necessary steps for its recognition. The Single Judge directed the State for the same, against which the State preferred a Writ Appeal. The Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge’s decision and extended the time granted by another 4 months.

Appellant’s Case

The Appellant’s case was that despite being a necessary and proper party to the Writ Petition filed before the High Court by the Respondent, they were not impleaded in the said proceedings. Resultantly, the case was before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, noted, “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.”

The Court remarked that with the existing procedure that is prescribed for the recognition of a village in the State of Nagaland, it would not be open for the Respondents respectively to blanketly assail the right of the Appellant to raise its objections as regards the recognition of the Respondent village.

“… it is the responsibility of the State to weed out frivolous objections and those devoid of merit from the process, in such a manner that the rights of the village seeking recognition are not prejudiced. What would be appropriate at this juncture is for the State to consider the objections of the appellant on their own merits and decide whether their ‘No objection’ is a pre-requisite for the grant of recognition of the respondent no. 1 village or not”, it added.

Whether the existence of an “inter-district boundary dispute” was a valid reason to keep the recognition of the Respondent village in abeyance?

The Court said that when the State has taken a policy decision or through its Cabinet has arrived at a certain conclusion, in their wisdom, after exhaustively considering all the relevant factors and recommendations, it would not be appropriate for Courts to interfere or supplant the finding arrived at by the Government.

“In the absence of any patent arbitrariness, capriciousness, mala fides or illegality, courts have always subscribed to the rule that executive decision-making must not be dissected and prodded unnecessarily. This is specially true for a State like Nagaland wherein the system of administration and governance is slightly different from the other States and where the government might be more familiar and informed of the ground realities that exist. In such scenarios, yielding to the executive expertise might be the right call. This judicial policy of non interference with the Cabinet decisions made by the government or vis-á-vis policy matters is no more res integra”, it further observed.

The Court was of the view that while there may exist a dispute between the Appellant and the Respondent village regarding the ownership of land, what is evident is that it does not seem to have anything to do with the boundary dispute which is prevailing in the region.

“The only reasonable ground or basis to further delay the recognition of the respondent no. 1 was the objection raised by the appellant to the public notice dated 13.10.2009. Still, this was also more than 15 years ago. We are equally baffled and frustrated with the enormous reluctance that the State has exhibited in considering the merits of the objections of the appellants and putting an end to this issue”, it also added.

Moreover, the Court was of the opinion that the State authorities would be better suited to delve into the accuracy and correctness of the claims put forth by the Appellant and effectively decide the issue once and for all.

“The courts face, for the lack of a better word, a real impediment in deciding such complex disputed questions of fact which are involved in the present litigation, especially at this stage. … Ever since this Court has taken seisin of this matter, the State has attempted to bring both parties together, at the same table, on multiple occasions, in the hopes of an amicable settlement being reached. However, every one of those attempts has remained unsuccessful in view of both parties refusing to concede or arrive at a middle-ground”, it further noted.

The Court said that the only option that remains with the State is to consider the stand taken by both parties, on merits, from an objective point of view and implement its decision without hesitation, because the alternative – protracting the present impasse and maintaining this limbo - is equally, if not more undesirable.

Conclusion

The Court, therefore, urged the State authorities to take a final call on the issue of recognition of the Respondent village with the utmost urgency and with strict adherence to the procedure which has been contemplated for the said purpose.

“In the likely event that a decision is arrived at to deny recognition to the respondent no. 1 village, it must be for reasons falling within the umbrella of the procedure laid out therein and the State must be ready to clearly indicate what their next plan of action would be, in that scenario”, it further observed.

The Court concluded that it cannot be said that the procedure envisaged in the two OMs respectively, was complied with in this case and that the inter-district boundary dispute had no nexus whatsoever with the issue of recognition of the Respondent village.

“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”, it also directed.

Accordingly, the Apex Court treated this matter as part heard, set aside the impugned OMs, and directed the Registry to notify this matter after 6 months before the same Bench after appropriate Orders from the Chief Justice of India (CJI).

Cause Title- Old Jalukai Village Council v. Kakiho Village & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 766)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Parthiv K. Goswami, AOR Diksha Rai, Advocates Atiga Singh, Apurva Sachdev, Piyush Vyas, Purvat Wali, and Abhishek Jaiswal.

Respondents: Senior Advocate K.N. Balgopal, AORs Renuka Sahu, K. Enatoli Sema, Advocates Shivam Singh, Amit Kumar Singh, Chubalemla Chang, and Prang Newmai.

Click here to read/download the Judgment