AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. A. Sophie, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. B. Soto, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4. Also heard Mr. Moa Imchen, learned Senior Government Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
The instant petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India invoking the supervisory jurisdiction for quashing and setting aside of the impugned decision Order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the District Customary Court, Phek, Nagaland.
The brief fact of the case is that on 10.06.1991, the Petitioner purchased a plot of land from one Tepungosa Vero, wherein the present Office of the Department of Food & Civil Supplies, Pfutsero is situated. A Land Settlement Deed dated 02.09.1994 was executed between the parties and thereafter, following the due process of law, the Petitioner became the absolute owner of the plot of land in question.
Thereafter, the land was donated by the Petitioner to the Department of Food &Civil Supplies and in lieu of the land donated, he was appointed as Scale Man by Order No. DS/4/AP-IT/95-96/1114 dated 20.07.1995. The Petitioner herein served under the said post and has retired.
Sometime in the year 2000, the Respondent No. 4 filed a Civil Suit numbered as Misc./Civil/Case No. 617/2000 against Tepungosa Vero, the person from whom the Petitioner purchased the land in the year, 1991 before the Head DB, Office of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pfutsero, Phek. The Petitioner was not made a party in the Suit nor was he given an opportunity to be heard in the said case.
By Order dated 17.04.2000, the Head DB, Office of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pfutsero, Phek decided the land in favour of the Respondent No. 4.
Aggrieved by the Order dated 17.04.2000, the Petitioner preferred Civil Revn. Petn. No. 18(K)/2017 challenging the Order before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench. By Judgment and Order (CAV) dated 07.12.2018, Hon’ble High Court quashed and set aside the Order dated 17.04.2000 alongwith other consequential orders and directed the DB’s Court to try the case afresh after giving all the parties their due opportunity of being heard and submission of their respective cases with evidence in support.
The Head DB, Office of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pfutsero, Phek in compliance of the directions contained in Judgment and Order (CAV) dated 07.12.2018, took up the case numbered as Misc./Civil/Case No. 617/2000 and by impugned decision and Order dated 21.11.2023 disposed the case upholding the earlier decision Order dated 17.04.2000.
Against the impugned decision Order dated 21.11.2023, the instant petitioner, preferred an appeal numbered as Misc./Civil/Case No. 119/2024, before the Deputy Commissioner, Phek, Nagaland in terms of the Rule 31 of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, 1937 (herein after referred to as “Rules of 1937”).
The Deputy Commissioner, i.e. the Respondent No. 2 instead of taking up the matter as per the Rule 31 of the Rules of 1937, endorsed the matter to the District Customary Court, Phek, Nagaland. By impugned decision Order dated 10.02.2025, the appeal was disposed of upholding the decision Order dated 17.04.2000.
Being aggrieved by the impugned decision Order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the District Customary Court, Phek, Nagaland, the Petitioner has filed this instant revision petition.
Mr. A. Sophie, counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned decision Order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the District Customary Court, Phek, Nagaland is without authority/jurisdiction inasmuch as the power to exercise such authority is vested upon the Deputy Commissioner under Rule 31 of the Rules of 1937. He further submits that the Respondent No. 2 referring the appeal filed by the Petitioner before the District Customary Court, Phek, Nagaland is bad in law and liable to be interfered with by this Hon’ble Court.
The counsel further submits that in terms of the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court in Judgment and Order (CAV) dated 07.12.2018 in Civil Revn. Petn. No. 18(K)/2017, the DB’s Court, Pfutsero has committed error in upholding its earlier decision Order dated 17.04.2000, without giving reasons or taking in consideration of the evidence placed by the parties.
He also further submits that despite the fact that an appeal against the decision of DBs lies with the Deputy Commissioner under Rule 31 of the Rules of 1937, the referring of the appeal by the Deputy Commissioner, Phek to the District Customary Court, Phek is in violation of the Rules. Further, the counsel submits that the District Customary Court, Phek without any authority and in violation of the provisions of the Rule of 1937 had upheld the decision dated 17.04.2000 as well as 21.11.2023 passed by the DB’s Court, Pfutsero, Phek. In view of the irregularities committed by the District Customary Court as well as deciding the matters without authority and also in total violation of the direction of this Hon’ble Court Judgment and Order dated 17.12.2018 passed in Civil Revn. Petn. No. 18(K)/2017, the same are bad in law and liable to be interfered with.
The counsel for the Petitioner therefore, submits that in exercise of its power under Article 227of the Constitution of India, he prays for a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Phek to rehear the matter as per the Records and evidence placed before the Authority.
The counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 fairly submits that there has been grave error in facts and in law on the part of the Respondent No. 2 in referring the matter to District Customary Court, Phek.
The counsel for the Respondent No. 4, Mr. B. Soto has filed his affidavit and fairly submits that there is a clear direction of the Hon’ble High Court contained in its Judgment and Order (CAV) dated 07.12.2018 passed in Civil Revn. Petn. No. 18(K)/2018, directing the DB’s Court, Pfutsero to rehear afresh the matter by affording all the parties an opportunity and to submit proof of evidence.
The counsel further submits that the Deputy Commissioner, Phek, referring the appeal filed by the instant Petitioner to the DB’s Court, Phek is violation of Rule 31 of the Rules of 1937.
Given the circumstances, he submits that the impugned decision Order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the DB’s Court, Phek suffers from patent lack of inherent jurisdiction and as such, may be set aside with the direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Phek to hear the appeal filed by the Petitioner as per the provisions of Rule 31 of the Rules of 1937.
Heard the parties at length.
Rule 31 of the Rules of 1937 provides that an appeal shall lie against the decision of the Mouzadar, Gaonbura, Chief, Head Man of the Khel, Dobashis, or other duly recognized Village Authority to the Tribal Court whenever constituted on otherwise to the Deputy Commissioner or his Assistant.
In the instant case, appeal has been preferred by the Petitioner under Rule 31 of the rules of 1937, before the Deputy Commissioner against the decision of the DB’s Court, Pfutsero. In terms of the Rules, the Deputy Commissioner ought to have heard the matter in his official capacity as authorized by the Rules and not preferring the matter to the DB’s Court, Phek.
From thesubmission of the parties and on perusal of the Records, it appears that the DB’s Court, Phek has acted without jurisdiction/authority as they are not the appropriate forum to adjudicate the matter in terms of Rule 31 of the Rules of 1937 and passing the impugned decision Order dated 10.02.2025 in Misc./Civil/Case No. 119/2024. Further, the DB’s Court, Pfutsero have also erred in law by passing the impugned decision Order dated 21.11.2023 in Misc./Civil/Case No. 167/2000 which is in contradiction and violation of the direction of this Hon’ble Court Judgment and Order (CAV) dated 07.12.2018 in Civil Revn. Petn. No. 18(K)/2017, which has been fairly admitted by the parties.
This Court has taken into consideration of the settled provision of law and more particularly, Rule 31 of the Rules of 1937 and under such circumstances, it would be deemed fit and proper to remand the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Phek to hear the matter afresh as provided under the Rules.
Accordingly, the impugned decision Order dated 10.02.2025 in Misc./Civil/Case No. 119/2024 passed by the DB’s Court, Phek and the impugned decision Order dated 21.11.2023 in Misc./Civil/Case No. 167/2000 passed by the DB’s Court, Pfutsero is hereby quashed and set aside.
The Deputy Commissioner, Phek is hereby directed to hear the appeal afresh filed by the Petitioner before him and dispose the same within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of the Order. It is made clear that the Deputy Commissioner, Phek under no circumstances shall refer the matter to any other authority as directed above.
The instant revision petition is allowed to the extent referred above and disposed of. No order as to cost.