Old Jalukai Village Council v. Kakiho Village & Ors.

p. 2702

permanent structures. It is keeping this in mind that we urge the State authorities to take a final call on the issue of recognition of the respondent no. 1 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.

70. Another set of arguments were canvassed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 as regards the relationship between the fundamental rights, more particularly Articles 14, 19 and 21 guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution and the special status assigned to customary practices under Article 371A of the Constitution. It was argued that customary practices protected under Article 371A cannot be utilised as a tool, rather a weapon, to abridge the fundamental rights of the people of Nagaland and the villagers of the respondent no. 1 village. However, in the absence of the relevant provisions of the 1978 Act and O.M.’s dated 22.03.1996 and 1.10.2005 respectively, themselves being challenged as being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the respondent no. 1 village and its inhabitants, there arises no occasion for us delve into the said question of law. The grievance of the respondent, as we understand, is primarily due to the delayed action, nay inaction, of the State authorities in conclusively deciding their application for recognition and the assignment of irrelevant reasons that perpetually kept their recognition in abeyance. We believe the said grievance has been addressed by us, appropriately and in great detail, in the preceding paragraphs.

E. CONCLUSION

71. In light of the aforesaid discussion, it cannot be said that the procedure envisaged in the two O.M.’s dated 22.03.1996 and 01.10.2005 respectively, was complied with in the present case. Furthermore, we are of the view that the inter-district boundary dispute had no nexus whatsoever with the issue of recognition of the respondent no. 1 village.

72. The decision of the High Court insofar as the observations made regarding the compliance with the aforesaid two O.M.’s are concerned,

p. 2703

is set aside solely because the High Court while passing the impugned decision, was not alive to the case of the appellant herein.

73. 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 6 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.

74. We treat this matter as part heard. The Registry shall notify this matter after a period of six months before this very Bench (J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.) after obtaining appropriate orders from Honourable the Chief Justice of India.

Result of the case: Part heard.