Judgement S. RANGARAJAN, J. :- This case raises an interesting question concerning the fixation of village boundaries and the rights which flow to the concerned villagers from it, necessarily imparting the idea of the duty of the concerned villagers of preserving, not violating, the village boundary (common frontier); otherwise there is the likelihood of recurrence of the kind of "war-fare" that was quite common between adjacent villages. The dispute here relates to the boundary between the villages of Tening and Tepon, which were known in the older times as Henima and Dupema, respectively. 2. The facts leading to the fixation of the boundary between the two villages in the year 1947 have been set out in the order, Annexure-11 to this petition, which has been filed on behalf of the villagers of Tepon; it is a copy of the decision made by Mr. S. J. Duncan in, what is known in this area as, Political Case No. 41 of 1947. The older names of the two villages of Tening and Tepon, Henima and Dupema, respectively figure in Annexure-11, as well as some other documents filed in this case. The decision was made by Mr. S. J. Duncan on the basis of a local enquiry which he made concerning the dispute. He made reference to the boundary between the two villages which had been laid by Sir Charles Pawsey (who was stated to be the Deputy Commissioner, Naga Hills, upto 1947) in the following terms :- ".........the boundary in regard to the land on the right of the path going from Henimadupema in so far as part of the boundary is concerned there is no more dispute. In so far as the boundary on the left of the path is concerned he (Sir Charles Pawsey) deferred demarcation till the land was cultivated." 3. This decision was stated to be in November, 1947. There was no dispute regarding the decision made by Sir Charles Pawsey. 4. The land was thereupon cultivated by Henima (Tening) in 1947 as per the said decision. This decision was stated to be in November, 1947. There was no dispute regarding the decision made by Sir Charles Pawsey. 4. The land was thereupon cultivated by Henima (Tening) in 1947 as per the said decision. No protest is alleged to have been made by Dupema (Tepon) at the time of Henima (Tening) cultivating the Jhums, i.e. during the process of cultivation; nor was there any protest made with regard to Henima (Tening) cultivating and Henima (Tening) thereafter gathering the harvest; nonetheless Dupema (Tepon) joined in a body and almost completely damaged the granaries of two Henima men. A report was received through Henima that Dupema was "preparing for war." 5. It may be noted, passing over other details not necessary for our present purpose, that Mr. S. J. Duncan fixed the boundary, as per a "red dotted line", in a sketch map (not available before us) from the "stone" which formed a starting point of the boundary laid down by Mr. Pawsey for the land on the right of the path (starting from Henima); the boundary proceed down the Hill till it came to an Ant Hill (mount), from this mount (or ant hill) in a straight line till it came to the head (source) of a small nalla and down this nalla to the Duilemki and thereafter down the Duilemki to its confluence with the Baduiki (two streamlets). The villagers of Dupema, i.e. Tepon were fined Rs. 300/- for destroying the two granaries of Henima (Tening) and were also given copies of the necessary portion of the order which was said to be "side-lined in blue". There does not appear to have been any appeal against this decision. 6. The further facts leading to this dispute appear as follows:- Annexure-VI to the petition is a copy of a judgment (order) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima District, (Shri I. Longkumar) to the following effects :- "Both Tepon and Tening villages would confine to respective areas demarcated earlier by the Deputy Commissioner. Any encroacher on the land beyond the earlier defined areas will be severely dealt with by the Government. The demarcation made by the earlier Deputy Commissioner must stand." 7. Any encroacher on the land beyond the earlier defined areas will be severely dealt with by the Government. The demarcation made by the earlier Deputy Commissioner must stand." 7. The exact date on which this order was passed does not appear from the said copy, which presumably shows the dates of application for a copy and a copy being granted, ranging between 25-8-73 to 28-8-73; it seems the copy was obtained on 28-8-73. Shri B. C. Barua, the learned counsel for the petitioner, was unable to shew a certified copy of the order (of which Annexure-VI is a typed copy) obtained by his client In order to ascertain whether the date of the Deputy Commissioners order appears in the certified copy but has been omitted in the copy filed along with this petition. However, we are able to see from the petition dated 30-8-73, copy of which is Annexure-VI, filed on behalf of Tepon village (Dupema) that the villagers of Tepon village had received a copy of the Deputy Commissioners order "dated 25-7-73". This obviously refers to the order, copy of which is Annexure-VI, which was obviously applied for on the very date the order was passed. It was asserted by the petitioner, however, in Annexure-IV that the said order dated 25-7-73 was passed "In absentia", confirming the decision earlier given by the Deputy Commissioner on an enquiry report submitted by the SDO (Civil), Peren. It was pursuant to this order representations were made, as we find from Annexure-IV, to the Deputy Commissioner that there was need for the boundary being clearly demarcated after proper verification of the area and that the same could be done only with the help of the persons present on the spot when the officials concerned visited the spot and the decision was made. It was also stated many eye-witnesses both from the villages including Dobashis (official interpreter) and Government officials were available for being examined. The villagers of Tepon, therefore, accordingly prayed for an enquiry to demarcate the boundary line. 8. Annexure III to the present petition is a copy of application from Tepon village to the Deputy Commissioner asserting here for the first time - a fact not referred to even in Annexure-IV - that Tening villagers entered Tepon land duly armed and destroyed the growing paddy of the villages with dao etc. 8. Annexure III to the present petition is a copy of application from Tepon village to the Deputy Commissioner asserting here for the first time - a fact not referred to even in Annexure-IV - that Tening villagers entered Tepon land duly armed and destroyed the growing paddy of the villages with dao etc. In the result it was complained that the paddy cultivated by the 17 villagers of Tepon had been destroyed and they were reduced to starvation. It was admitted that the boundary line had been drawn by Mr. Pawsey, the then Deputy Commissioner of Naga Hills District in a judgment passed by him though it was further stated that the "place of occurrence" was given to Tepon. 9. Annexure-V to this petition was a subsequent reminder by some villagers of Tepon complaining that no action had been taken in furtherance of their original application, Annexure-III. 10. In the impugned order, which was passed on 10-9-94, it has been stated, inter alia, that the official who passed it (Namko Zeliang) had himself accompanied Mr.S J. Duncan, at his request; he was then the Headmaster of Government High School, Peren (he became, later, a Circle Officer in 1958). The said officer (Namko Zeliang) had himself, on a later occasion, had ordered the construction of three cemented pillars along the boundary now in dispute; firstly on the mound, secondly between mound and head source, and lastly on the head source of the small nalla (without name) which flowed to the Duilemki. Shri Namko Zeliang later found, on check, that these pillars have been dismantled by "interested persons". He could see some new findings, which were important marks, on the straight line as laid down by Mr. S. J. Duncan which can be safely regarded as the boundary "even now": starting from the bill (uncultivable) down to the "big stone" (as shown in the rough sketch map) from the big stone four steps, one small stone three steps and one big stone (but smaller than the first stone) two stones, one smaller stone, and straight going from the 4th small stone thirty steps he found the mound (ant hill) as per Tening and not Tepons (ant hill). From the ant hill (mound) one went about 120 (one hundred twenty) steps to reach the head source of the nalla (without name) which runs straight to Duilemki. 11. From the ant hill (mound) one went about 120 (one hundred twenty) steps to reach the head source of the nalla (without name) which runs straight to Duilemki. 11. The net result of the spot verification (by one who was quite knowledgeable and was himself personally acquainted with the earlier demarcation) was that the Tepon village had encroached into Cherankui land and violated the order of Mr. S. J. Duncan. It may be noted, in this connection, that there is reference in the impugned order to what had been dealt with by Mr. Burhe and Mr. Pawsey, namely, that it was Changai range; Mr. Duncan had dealt with Cheranqui range. 12. It is important that the entire basis of the impugned order is the result of the said "spot inspection". Shri Namko Zeliang not only saw, at the time of his visit before passing the impugned order, a few features which helped him to fix the boundary but he himself had known Mr. S. J. Duncans demarcation of the said boundary. The impugned order, therefore, would not have to be viewed as one passed by an umpire who had himself personal knowledge of the fact in dispute a feature vitiating his decision on the ground of his own personal knowledge but on the ground of the same being, on the contrary, vesting him with a kind of expertise which only made him all the more qualified to decide the dispute, in the absence of bias or mala fides, even if this decision may be regarded as a quasi-judicial one and not a purely administrative one. Actually fixing the demarcation line between villages may be strictly making an administrative decision. Even if it is regarded as a quasi-judicial one, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in A. K Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150 , the distinction previously drawn between administrative decision has diminished, almost to vanishing point. The decision, therefore, has to be viewed substantially from the point of fairness in reaching it. No principle of natural justice was violated; no such violation has been alleged. The same was reached openly in the presence of the contestants and after verifying the topographical details which were determinative of the dispute. The decision, therefore, has to be viewed substantially from the point of fairness in reaching it. No principle of natural justice was violated; no such violation has been alleged. The same was reached openly in the presence of the contestants and after verifying the topographical details which were determinative of the dispute. In such a situation (especially involving tension between two villages) there was clearly no need for Shri Namko Zeliang to indulge in the needless exercise of recording evidence concerning facts which were physically verifiable, especially when he was also aided by his own expertise, stemming from his having been present not only during the inspection and decision of Mr. Duncan, but even later (in 1958) as Circle Officer of this area. This expertise was an invaluable element in his decision and would have to be upheld even for this reason, in the absence of imputation of mala fides. There is not even a whisper of mala fides in this case. Such expertise had to be made known to the contestants in the very process of making a spot inspection in their presence, involving (as it necessarily did) a full discussion, including such facts as were within his personal knowledge and known to the contestants themselves. The latter feature is emphasized by reason of several persons, from both sides, who were present during the previous fixation by Mr. Duncan being alive this fact appears from the very representations made by the petitioners in this case to the effect that several of them were available; it was only stated that an equal number of such persons, from each side, should have been formally examined. We are wholly unable to appreciate any compulsive need fat adopting such a procedure in the circumstances explained above. Administrative law has grown to such proportions, that it has broken out of the previous restitutive approaches, especially in the areas involving expertise. The needed expertise is now considered to be the most valuable part of such decisions; the only requirement (which is one pertaining to fairness) seems to be that before such decisions, based on expertise, are reached the relevant details pertaining to it must be known to the contestants, so that they may have an opportunity of making their submissions to the umpire having such expertise, before he decides. Judged by these standards the impugned decision could not it seems, to us, be assailed; it was a fair one, openly made, in the presence of the contestants and after hearing them on the topographical details necessary and relevant for the decision. The only other aspact concerns the legal authority for invoking a collective fine, the details of which will be noticed presently. 13. The true perspective needed for a decision of this case can be had from the Rules for the Administration of Justice/ Police in the Naga Hills District (said to be still current as per the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1967 SC 212 , State of Nagaland v. Ratan Singh). They are the revised rules that were made for the administration of Justice and Police in Naga Hills by the aforesaid rules, cancelling all previous rules. It deals with certain general aspects in addition to specific areas like police, criminal, Justice etc. The administration of the district of Naga Hills was vested in the Governor of Assam and certain others including the Deputy Commissioners and the Addl. Deputy Commissioners who were to be appointed by the Governor, their areas and jurisdiction also being defined by the Governor; the Deputy Commissioners could do so in the case of assistants working under him. The control of police has been vested in the Deputy Commissioner acting on behalf of the Governor. There is a separate category of rules for police-Rr. 6 to 14 in Chap. II. Appeals from all orders passed by various officials including village authorities in police matters would lie to the Deputy Commissioner. Certain duties were laid on mauzadar, GBs, etc. in the matter of watching and reporting and delivering vagrants, bad and suspicious characters from within their jurisdiction; special provisions existing relating to the rural police, who are not police officers within the meaning of Ss. 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act or S. 162 of the Cr. P.C. (old). Certain provisions, which are needless to notice here, have also been made in respect of certain heinous crimes like robbery, murder etc. What concerns us at the moment is R. 14, which is in Part 11 of the said Rules, relating to the police. It is necessary to set it out fully. P.C. (old). Certain provisions, which are needless to notice here, have also been made in respect of certain heinous crimes like robbery, murder etc. What concerns us at the moment is R. 14, which is in Part 11 of the said Rules, relating to the police. It is necessary to set it out fully. "All the inhabitants of the Naga Hills who are under the administrative control of the Deputy Commissioner are bound to aid the regular police and village authorities when required to do so for the maintenance of order or the apprehension of offenders (or for the performance of customary duties for public purposes like the repair or upkeep of roads, village foot path, bridle paths, village wells, Construction work, etc.). Any persons failing to do so is liable to fine, the fine to be adjudged by the mauzadar, gaonbura, chief, headman of a khel or other chief village authority, to the extent he is empowered to award in criminal cases or by the Deputy Commissioner (or the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mokokchung, so far as the Mokokchung Sub-Division is concerned, if a fine beyond the amount those officers are authorised to impose is considered necessary. When the particular persons blamable for failure to aid in any community cannot be ascertained, the mauzadar, gaonbura, chief, headman of a khel or chief village authority, shall be considered responsible, and if it appears that the community is to blame, and that particular offenders cannot be discovered, a fine may be imposed upon the community, but by the Deputy Commissioner only "or by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mokokchung so far as the Mokokchung Sub-Division is concerned, subject to the approval in writing of the Deputy Commissioner". 14. Appeal lies to the High Court against the order of the conviction passed by the Deputy Commissioner awarding life imprisonment or fine upto Rs. 1,000/- or more. The present petition is such an appeal. 15. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shri Namko Zeliang, has imposed a collective fine on Tepon Village who were found guilty of violating Mr. Duncans order. They were ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1,480/- collectively for the encroachment of the boundary and also for illegal cultivation on the encroached land to be paid within 3 days. If the same was paid within the said period, Tepon villagers will harvest the standing crops. Duncans order. They were ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1,480/- collectively for the encroachment of the boundary and also for illegal cultivation on the encroached land to be paid within 3 days. If the same was paid within the said period, Tepon villagers will harvest the standing crops. In the event of not paying Rupees 1,480/- within the said time, the Government will harvest the standing crops and even then Tepon village will pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- The paddy so harvested was to be given to the NAP (Nagaland Armed Police) Tening at a nominal cost of Rs. 5/-per tin of grain. Out of the total proceeds of the sale of paddy, Rs. 1,000/- received in the above manner from Tepon village, Rs. 400/- would be paid to Tening and the balance to be used for construction of permanent nalla along the above boundary line starting from 10 (ten) feet down the hill to big stone and from the 4th stone to the ant-hill and then to the nalla to be 3 (three) feet by 3 (three) feet. 16. The challenge, to the impugned order, has been essentially based before us on the ground that R. 14 does not apply to the present case. There is very little substance in the contention that R. 14 was not expressly invoked in the impugned order. It is settled law that even without stating the provision of law, the authority could use the power conferred by that law if it exists. The only dispute, therefore, is substantially one pertaining to whether on the facts of the case (which are indisputable) Rule 14 would apply. 17. The said Rule, even on a plain reading of it, would show that the power to impose collective fine, which was obviously considered necessary to confer, was due to the imperative need to keep the peace and maintain law and order among tribals and villagers in this area. Rule 14 itself refers to this aspect, namely, "the maintenance of order". The provisions of R. 14 would, therefore, have to be read and understood in the context of this need, to maintain order. In the case of apprehension of offenders, the entire community, could be collectively fined, if they are blamable for failure to aid in apprehending the required offender (s). It would be needless to dilate this aspect here. 18. The provisions of R. 14 would, therefore, have to be read and understood in the context of this need, to maintain order. In the case of apprehension of offenders, the entire community, could be collectively fined, if they are blamable for failure to aid in apprehending the required offender (s). It would be needless to dilate this aspect here. 18. The crucial question is whether the villagers of Tepon had failed to perform any "customary duty" as contemplated by the said Rule. Rule 14 no doubt refers to "customary duties for public purposes" and it also enumerates some of them, like upkeep of roads, village footpath, bridle path, village wells etc. etc. It is clear from the very language employed that the specific instances of customary duties for public purposes are by no means exhaustive; they are merely illustrative. This being the case, the decision in this case would hinge upon whether the duty to maintain the village boundaries fixed by the authority, and not violating it, can be considered to be one of customary duties for public purposes contemplated by R. 14. For the purpose of a clear understanding of this aspect it appears necessary to briefly notice the historical context. A number of works giving a historical account of the Nagas, of the Nagas particularly in the 19th Century, are available; we can find some useful observations on this aspect, found in "The Angami Nagas" by J. H. Hutton, C. I. E., D. Sc., M. A. published by Oxford University Press in 1969. The same was published by direction of the Government of Nagaland. The passages we have in mind appear in Part 11 of the said work, commencing from page 43. The said part which deals with "domestic life" starts in the following manner; "The Angami village is invariably built either on the summit of a hill, on a high saddle, or perhaps more frequently on the ridge of some spurt running down from a high range. This site, though generally in a position highly defensible if not impregnable from the point of Naga warfare, has not been chosen with a knowledge of the weapons of civilisation, and could usually be easily commanded by firearms from some adjoining peak or ridge.................." We are concerned here with Angami villages. This site, though generally in a position highly defensible if not impregnable from the point of Naga warfare, has not been chosen with a knowledge of the weapons of civilisation, and could usually be easily commanded by firearms from some adjoining peak or ridge.................." We are concerned here with Angami villages. It is again stated (page 44) as follows:- "The Angami villages must, before their annexation, have been elaborately and effectively fortified. They have lost the less permanent of their original defences, but their ditches, approaches and great doors have so far survived the insidious ravages of the "Pax Britannica". 19. Dr. Hutton cites a passage from Capt. Butler describing the Angami village the whole of which need not be set out here; the same has been reproduced in pages 44 and 45 of the above said work. 20. It is clear from a perusal of the said passage that whenever there are some clan feuds, a careful watch is kept day and night and that several roads leading into the village are studded with defensive equipment like pegs, driven deep into the ground to at least prevent people "rushing on". 21. There is also a reference in the said work (vide page 49) to a large stone "Kipuche" near the gate to the part of the village occupied by a particular clan; the stone was even the subject of veneration. Probably, we are by no means sure, the large stone referred to in Mr. Duncans decision fixing the boundary of the two villages, is such a stone. 22. References have now been made to these details of the Angami village in Nagaland in order to explain how important is the village of these societies. The village here is an especially self-contained one (even more than in the other parts of this country). Feuds resulting in even a kind of "war-fare" had to be avoided and controlled. This predatory instinct seems to have survived even in modern times. The meaning of the expression "customary duty" employed in R. 14 has to be appreciated in the historical context described briefly above. It seems to us there is a customary duty to defend the boundary of each village and an even greater duty not to interfere with or violate such boundary; this is one of the objects, to achieve which, R. 14 was enacted. This object, visualised in R. 14. It seems to us there is a customary duty to defend the boundary of each village and an even greater duty not to interfere with or violate such boundary; this is one of the objects, to achieve which, R. 14 was enacted. This object, visualised in R. 14. could not be fulfilled unless it were possible to deal with the villages collectively and impose collective fines on them when they violate such a boundary. This is exactly what the impugned order has sought to do. We are not persuaded that any ground has been made out on the facts to interfere with the said order. What we have said is sufficient to repel the argument pertaining to want of power to impose a collective fine. 23. The petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. In the interest of future amity between the two villages, we do not make any order regarding cost. The parties are left to bear their own costs primarily because the villagers of Tening impleaded in this petition as respondent have not even entered appearance in the case. We regard this as a hopeful indication of future peace between the two villages. Petition dismissed.