MEZOMA VILLAGE COUNCIL Vs. STATE OF NAGLAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Mr.T.Kaza, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Y. Longkumar,learned Govt.Advocate,Nagaland. Also heard Mr. Taka Masa, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

(2.) The petitioner village council is challenging the order dated 20.11.2009 passed by the Respondent No.3, SDO(Civil) Sechu-zubza under Kohima District, whereby a collective fine of Rs.1 lac has been imposed on the petitioner-village for alleged willful damage and destruction of various properties belonging to Respondent No.4, Sechuma Village Council with direction to deposit the said amount on or before 18.12.2009 and in default, the amount shall be deducted from the VDB grant-in-aid fund of

(3.) Before passing the impugned order aforesaid a show cause notice dated 13.1.2009 was issued by the respondent-SDO upon the Chairman of the petitioner-village asking it as to why legal action should not be initiated for knowingly damaging and destroying the timber, logs etc.at Thenyira, Sechuma by the petitioner village, Mezuma on 28.9.2009. The said show cause notice was issued on the basis of a complaint received from the respondent-village council. The petitioner-village council submitted the reply to the show cause on 22.10.2009 addressed to the respondent-SDO. The show cause reply was signed by village council members, head Gaonbura and other Gaonburas denying the allegations. In the said show cause reply it was clarified that the alleged collection of timbers and fantta by the Mezuma villagers on 28.9.09 was purely within the jurisdiction of Mezuma village. It was further clarified that the sketch map of Thenyira land was prepared by the Angami Public Organisation (APO) without consulting the concerned two villagers and therefore, the claim of the respondent-village was based on a wrong sketch map. The petitioner's case is that the respondent SDO passed the impugned order imposing the collective fine of Rs.1 lac on Mezuma Village Council without application of mind and without any jurisdiction inasmuch as the allegation brought against the petitioner-village council is commercial in nature and the respondent SDO has no authority to pass the impugned order by exercising administrative power in a matter involving dispute over boundaries between two villages. At best, the respondent SDO can only refer the matter to the appropriate court to decide the matter and has no power to impose fine. It is also contended by the petitioner that since the case is purely civil in nature, the aggrieved party has to institute civil suit before an appropriate court /forum.