HUMTSE VILLAGE REP. BY SRI RAMVUE Vs. YIKHUM VILLAGE REP. BY SRI LINYIM G.B.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Rule 34 of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, 1937, for short 'the Rules.' The parties are Lothas. A land dispute cropped up between the villagers of Humtse village, hereinafter to be referred as 'H' village and the villagers of Yikhum, hereinafter to be referred as 'Y' village. In 1952/53 when 'H' villagers commenced clearance of the disputed land (Jungle) they were obstructed by 'Y' villagers who laid their claim on that part of the land which was being cleared by 'H' villagers. The dispute was placed before Sri N. N. Bhuyan, the then Sub -Divisional Officer, Mokokchung, who also exercised power of A. D. C. (ii), Mokokchung. Upon hearing both the parties, making local inquiries and having exercised, over the matter. Sri Bhuyan passed an order which was beneficial to both the parties. His order clearly describes the land in dispute. However, the villagers were not satisfied with the decision and came up In appeal before Mr. S. J. D. Carvelho, the then Deputy Commissioner, Naga Hills. At the hearing of the appeal both the parties agreed to take customary oath 'on entire villagers' lives', the parties claimed that the land in dispute or the subject -matter of the dispute belonged to the parties from time immemorial. When both the parties agreed and or were willing to take the customary oath, the learned Deputy Commissioner ordered that oath should be taken by the GBs and Elders (three from each village) on their lives as well as the lives of the villagers. Such oath being taken by both the parties, the land which was the subject -matter of dispute before Shri N. N. Bhuyan was directed to be divided equally between 'H' 'and 'Y' villagers.

(2.) THE learned Deputy Commisioner directed the Sub -Divisional Officer., Mokokchung to demarcate the land with the help of the Officers referred to in his order, within a month from the date of the order. Therefore, the dispute raised by the parties was finally settled by the Deputy Commissioner who directed land to be divided equally between 'H' and 'Y' villagers in the manner set out in the order; the Deputy Commissioner directed the Sub -Divisional Officer Mokokchung to demarcate the area of the parties. This order was rendered as far back as on 14 -11 -1955. There was no appeal against this order by any of the parties. Therefore it became final. It is the common case of the parties that the land was never demarcated by the SDO, Mokokchung as ordered by the Deputy Commissioner. It is also a common case of the parties that in view of the non -demarcation of the boundary constant disputes arose between the villagers. When such a dispute arose the present respondents petitioned to the Deputy Commissioner to execute the order of the former Deputy Commissioner directing division of the disputed land in terms of the order dated 14 -11 -55. However, the Deputy Commissioner, in our opinion, instead of demarcating the area, treated it to be almost a new dispute and decided the claims of the villagers afresh. It is true that the Deputy Commissioner took note of the final order passed by Mr. Carvelho but instead of implementing that order he reopened the issue which had been decided, by Mr. Carvelho. The Dy. Commr. in his impugned judgment and order brought certain mat - ters which were not to be found in the order of Mr. Carvelho. The Deputy Commissioner thought that the duration of the oath was only for one year, that is, one year from the date of taking of oath which extended up to the period of the first harvest. However. We find that oaths were taken for good and on the basis of the oaths so taken by the parties a final decision was made by Mr. Carvelho. The Deputy Commissioner in his order dated 24 -9 -1970 introduced extraneous matters. He observed that the parties had taken oath to the effect that if within the next harvest season a villager of either village died the other village would get the entire property. However, this was not to be found in the final order of Mr. Carvelho. We also do not find any such custom or customarv law of the Lotha Nagas in Mill's 'The Lotha Nagas' or in any other authoritative books on the Lothas. We are constrained to hold that in the impugned order the Deputy Commissioner has introduced matters which were nowhere in the judgment and order passed by Mr. Carvelho.

(3.) THE Deputy Commissioner, Wokha completely overlooked the true spirit behind Sections 11 and 12 of the Code and assumed that he had jurisdiction to try the dispute afresh. The previous Deputy Commissioner determined the disputed land. He directed the SDO, Mokokchung to demarcate the disputed land. The Deputy Commissioner, Wokha, on receipt of the complaint from the appellant should have directed the SDO, Wokha to demarcate 'equally the disputed land between villagers of 'H' and 'Y' instead of that he usurped his jurisdiction to try the dispute overlooking the final decision made by Mr. Carvelho, These are the grounds on which the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and/or District Magistrate, Wokha in Land Dispute Case No. 1 of 1953 cannot be sustained.'