KIYEKHU VILLAGE COUNCIL Vs. ZHEKIYE VILLAGE COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Imkong Jamir, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Imti Longjem, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) The factual matrix of this case as presented by the appellant is that some time in the 1830s one Khuishe of Kiyekhu village allowed his son Zhekiye to migrate from Kiyekhu Village, and the traditional practice of burning a dog during migration which was the custom among the Sema tribe of Nagaland was performed at a stream which was named as " Atsukughu Ghoki ". This stream was made as the traditional boundary between the appellant and the respondent village. Both the appellant and the respondent village co-existed peacefully till the year 1992 when a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh was sanctioned by the Government to the appellant/Kiyekhu Village for improving the approach road to the village under the Compact Area Development Scheme (CADS for short). It was only during this time that the respondent/Zhekiye Village made a claim that as a major portion of the road fell within the respondent's land they should also be given a part of the sanctioned amount.

(3.) Thereafter, the matter was taken up at various levels in different courts and finally reached the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Apex Court directed the Additional Deputy Commissioner Judicial {ADC (J) for short}, Dimapur to decide all the contentions raised in the pending appeal by both the parties in accordance with law. The ADC (J), Dimapur, by judgment and order dtd. 30/9/2002 disposed of the case in favour of the present appellant. Against the said judgment and order dtd. 30/9/2002, the respondent/Zhekiye Village had preferred an appeal before this Court being FA/9(K)/2002. After hearing the parties, this Court by Judgment and Order dtd. 30/10/2018 disposed the appeal with the direction that the trial court shall decide the issue of adverse possession and the claims of adverse possession by the respective villagers shall remain confined to the disputed land involved in the proceeding and the same shall not be expanded to any other land beyond the disputed land involved in this proceeding.