SHRI NGUROHIEZAO ANGAMI AND ORS. Vs. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL) AND SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Rule No. 237/70 arises out of a petition filed by one Ngurohie.zao Angami on behalf of himself and the villagers of Tenyiphe Village District Kohima, Nagaland. The case is that he is a resident of village Tenyiphe in the District la in the State of Nagaland. He to belongs to Angami Scheduled Tribe and Chairman of Tenyiphe village Council constituted in accordance with and practice followed from time immemorial amongst the Angami tribe residing in Nagaland.. The area in occupation of the members of the Angami tribe since the time immemorial is the entire area within the following boundaries: On the North up to Dimapur, on the South - -starting from Mao, on the West -from Dzulake and on the East upto Saiduma. According to customs prevalent amongst the Angami tribe, the members thereof are entitled to occupy, use and enjoy lands within the above area for their own cultivation and residence by forming; villages under different Village Councils. In 1951 Angami villagers residing in the villages Zakhama Viswema, Khuzema, Kohima. Jotsoma, Khonoma, Miazuma, Merema, Pfuchama, Tophema, Chiechema, Kigwema, Puesama and other villages in the Naga Hills decided to shift to other Angami areas due to over -population and scarcity of cultivable land in their villages, and the land situated by the side of Imphal -Dimapur Road in between six and seven mile -stones being found to be covered by jungles and not inhabited by others, the villagers of the aforesaid villages shifted to the aforesaid lands and constructed a village known as Tenyiphe village. The villagers reclaimed the land after hard toil and made it fit for cultivation and residence.

(2.) BY this writ petition the Petitioner has challenged the aforesaid notice dated 29 -1 -7Q and the order dated 2 -3 -70 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dimapur.

(3.) MR . B.C. Barua, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the lands in question are in possession of the Petitioner and his co -villagers and they have got their houses thereon and they have not been dispossessed as yet. The learned Counsel submits that there Is no law authorising the Government to evict these persons and that the impugned notice and order were issued and passed without any authority of law and as such these are wholly without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.