Morung Express News
Dimapur | September 16
The Supreme Court on September 15 declined to interfere with the judgement order passed by Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench (GHCKB) in a long-running land dispute involving Thilixu ‘B’ Village in Dimapur.
The apex court, while dismissing the Special Leave Petition (SLP), stated it was “not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.”
“The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed,” read the order issued by Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, adding that the accompanying interlocutory application(s), if any, stood disposed of.
However, it set aside the portion of the High Court’s order imposing the costs Rs 11,000 on the petitioner saying they were not warranted in the circumstances of the case.
Case Background
The matter relates to a civil suit filed by Thilixu ‘B’ Village seeking declaration of right, title and interest over a parcel of land, besides recovery of possession, demarcation and permanent injunction against the State authorities.
The District and Sessions Judge, Dimapur had dismissed the suit in 2016, following which the village approached the GHCKB.
In its judgment dated March 24, 2026, Justice Devashis Baruah dismissed the appeal, holding that the land claimed by Thilixu ‘B’ fell within the Rangapahar Reserved Forest/Zoological Park area.
It noted that Rangapahar had been declared a Reserved Forest through notifications issued in 1916 and 1924, while 470 hectares were subsequently declared Rangapahar Wildlife Sanctuary in 1986. The Court found that the appellant had failed to establish that the Schedule-A land claimed by it lay outside the Reserved Forest.
The ruling further held that, in view of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 and Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the appellant was not entitled to seek a declaration of right, title and interest over the land or the consequential reliefs sought.
A separate issue before the Court concerned the status of Thilixu ‘B’ as a recognised village.
An additional issue was framed in 2019 on whether the village had been formed according to the prevailing customary laws and recognised in accordance with the applicable norms in Nagaland. The GHCKB remanded the issue to the Trial Court for consideration of additional evidence by GHCKB.
The Trial Court, in an order dated January 24, 2025, found that village had not established that it was a recognised village under the applicable norms or that it had been formed according to customary law.
The High Court upheld that finding while noting that Government's Office Memorandum dated March 22, 1996 prescribed a minimum of 50 houses and a population of at least 250 persons for recognition as a village.
The evidence before the Court indicated that Thilixu ‘B’ had 29 houses. The petitioner had also stated during cross-examination that the Government had not recognised the village.
The High Court consequently found no error in the 2016 judgment and decree or in the Trial Court's 2025 order on the additional issue and dismissed the appeal.
.jpg)
