INAVI VILLAGE Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P. Khataniar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner Inavi Village. Also heard Mr. I. Longjem, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner Naga United/Inavi Village. Mr. L.S. Jamir, learned Addl. Advocate General along with Ms. Y. Longkumer, appears for the State Respondents. The Union of India is represented by Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned Central Government Standing Counsel.

(2.) 1 It has been made be clear at the very outset that in the 2(two) writ petitions, the prayers of the Petitioners are substantially same and the only reason for the 2 separate petition as explained in the WP(C) No. 217(K)/2009 is because of the difference amongst the writ Petitioners, on the nomenclature of the village under which they seek recognition. One group led by Havito Sumi wish to be identified as representative of the Inavi village whereas the other group headed by Tokugha Achumi, wish to be recognized as the Naga United/Inavi village.

(3.) 1 Arguing the WHO 111(K)/2009, Mr. P. Khataniar submits that when the Petitioners wanted to settle down in the area, the Nagaland Home Commissioner on 22.4.1988 accorded permission to the intending migrants to establish a village at a place called Hazadisa and on the basis of such permission it is claimed that the Inavi village was established in the area, adjacent to the recognized Beisumpukam village near the Monglomukh river with the following land boundaries: