Supreme Court’s Justice J.B. Pardiwala Directs Nagaland Government to Reassess Kakiho Village Recognition, Citing Procedural Fairness Under 1996 and 2005 Memoranda

Introduction

A three-judge panel of the Supreme Court looked up an appeal challenging the decision of the Gauhati High Court ordering the Nagaland government to acknowledge Kakiho Village in May 2025.

Executive memos outlining requirements for acknowledging new villages in Nagaland and whether an existing inter-district border conflict might justify indefinite delay of recognition were under discussion.

Written by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, the ruling defined the procedural protections in village recognition and confirmed that border disputes cannot permanently stop administrative judgments.

facts of the case

Established on privately purchased property in September 2007, Kakiho Village ( response number one) stood on territory claimed by Old Jalukai Village Council (appellant). Kakiho’s council chairman sought recognition under criteria defined in the 1996 O.M.

by applying to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, in March 2009 By October 2009, spot verification verified the population and limits of the community, and surrounding towns issued “No Objection Certificates. Old Jalukai complained, claiming Kakiho lay on ancestral property and provided more information when requested, inviting public comments.

Subject to joint confirmation by the Deputy Commissioners of Peren and Dimapur, the State Cabinet authorized Kakiho’s recognition in December 2011. Peren’s DC turned away a clear view, alleging an unsolved inter-district border conflict, but Dimapur’s report verified Kakiho’s placement within her district.

For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators )

As such, recognition orders were put in abeyance. In April 2014 Kakiho filed a writ case; the Single Judge granted recognition within three months, a limit subsequently changed by a Division Bench to four months. Not implemented, Old Jalukai questioned this system before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act, 1978 controls village recognition in Nagaland; two important Office Memoranda published by the Home Department also guide this process.

The 1996 O.M. specifies minimum population and housing parameters, indigenous makeup, land sufficiency for agriculture, and—critically—the need that new villages on ancestral territory have a “No Objection Certificate” from parent village councils. The O.M. complements in 2005 this with a required public notice outlining village borders and a 30-day time for complaints.

Together, these documents codify customs protected by Article 371A of the Constitution, which preserves Naga customary law including property ownership and transfer from Parliamentary legislation unless Nagaland’s legislature approves.

Important Concerns
The Supreme Court noted two fundamental questions:

• Whether Kakiho had complied with all requirements in the 1996 and 2005 memos, including appropriate consideration of Old Jalukai’s concerns, * Whether the inter-district boundary issue fairly warranted maintaining recognition in abeyance.

Exercises on Procedural Compliance

Justice Pardiwala underlined that the 2005 public notice process is just a one-time chance for impacted parties to be heard, therefore objections had to be given serious thought on their grounds. Old Jalukai objected immediately and added other boundary specifications, but the record did not show the DC, Dimapur, assessing these proposals before suggesting Cabinet acceptance.

The Court decided that administrative agencies had to separate sincere concerns from unfounded ones, therefore providing appellants with a fair hearing free from compromising the rights of the applicant village. Should Old Jalukai’s assent be a genuine pre-requirement under customary law and the 1996 O.M., the State must state so clearly; otherwise, recognition should follow after all official actions have been taken.

Boundary Conflict between Inter-Districts

The 2002 Peren–Dimapur border report of the Ezong Committee observed overlapping tribal settlements and suggested postponing designation of new villages until boundaries were finalized. The Supreme Court noted that just joint verification—which was carried out—had been required for cabinet clearance of Kakiho’s recognition.

After then, the Cabinet’s mandate could not be superseded by the Peren DC’s refusals to comment on border concerns. Boundary finalisation could not permanently prevent Kakiho’s recognition as a similar “Sumi” village had been planned for Kohima (now Peren) for administrative convenience notwithstanding tribe affinity.

The Court decided that further delay would compromise predictability in land management and undermine the established legislative framework.

Grand finale

Boundary conflicts caused the Supreme Court to revoke the decisions issued by the Gauhati High Court, therefore ignoring Old Jalukai’s legal arguments and hence postponing recognition.

It remitted the matter to the State, guiding it to: consider Old Jalukai’s objections on their merits and decide whether Kakiho’s recognition rightfully requires parental consent; if so, help to enable a negotiated settlement between the villages; if not, grant formal recognition within a reasonable timeframe, unaffected by the yet-to-be-resolved inter-district boundary demarcation.

This ruling underlines the significance of consistent, non-discriminatory administrative decision-making in land and village recognition and confirms that executive concessions once supported by Cabinet approval and procedural conformity cannot be unilaterally reversed.