A boundary dispute has been going on between two villages- Khehoi and Toshiho for about two decades by now. The dispute is relatable to approximately 1 KM of land. The dispute was taken up by the Circle Officer and subsequently by the Additional Deputy Commissioner who visited the location along with the Circle Officer, Regional Council Member and other officers. After taking note of earlier demarcation of boundary, the same was upheld and some direc­tions were given as contained in the judgment of learned Additional Deputy Commissioner. Toshiho did not feel happy with the decision of the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner and approached this Court which was the subject matter of MA (F) 2 (K) /76. This Court by its order dated 6.4.82 refused to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the appeal. Khehoi thereafter wanted to execute the decision. On 24.11.83, the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur ordered that the area under encroachment by Toshiho should be identified by the people who did the original demarcation and there­after evicted from the area. The order of 24.11.83 required use of minimum force. Subsequently, there were political attempts to stall the execution. This is apparent from letter dated 5.12.83 written by the Hon'ble Minister of State for Excise, Government of Nagaland. It was observed in that letter that since 1973 Toshiho Village was included in Delimitation Commission of Nagaland Assembly consti­tuency and actually the village was allotted by the Revolutionary Government of Nagaland. It was stated about Khehoi village that it was at the top of the hill and despite this "how High Court has given this decision to the eviction of this village." The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner was therefore requested to keep the execution in abeyance. Shri Vikhoshe, who was then a MLA, also requested the Additional Deputy Commissioner to keep the order of this Court in abeyance till the matter was taken up according to customary law. This communication is dated 8. 12. 83. Despite these letters, the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner directed to see that the order of this Court was carried out latest by 10. 2. 84. This order was rendered on 27. 1. 84 directing the Superintendent of police Dimapur to provide enough police force to see that eviction was carried out without any disruption of the normal law and order situation. 2. 84. This order was rendered on 27. 1. 84 directing the Superintendent of police Dimapur to provide enough police force to see that eviction was carried out without any disruption of the normal law and order situation. Further reminder was issued by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner on 10,2.84 to carry out the eviction latest by 21.2.84. Then came a signal from the lear­ned Deputy Commissioner, Kohima dated 16.2.84 asking the Executing Court to keep in abeyance the implementation of various court's order till spot study of the issues by the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima with Hon'ble Minister for Excise, Shri Vikoshe MLA, A.D.C. Dimapur and all Border Magistrates. Deputy Commissioner, Kohima also issued a notice on GB of Khehoi village on 6.12.84 wherein it was stated that on spot verification it was found that Khehoi had shifted from original village to the site of the present location which was in the disputed area. The notice observed that if the dispute was not sorted out ami­cably, Khehoi village would be compelled to vacate the present village and to go to the original village at once. As the decree obtained by Khehoi village could not be got executed, it has approached this Court under Rule 34 of the Rules for .Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland and under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. 2. When this petition came up before this Court on 10-3-86 it was felt that certain substantial questions of law required to be gone into and clarified, and the Court stated inter alia as below ;- "This matter involves substantial question of law as to the limit and jurisdiction of the State Govt. in the matter of settlement and demarcation of villages in Nagaland. It is also to be decided as to whether in a case of boundary dispute between the villagers of one village and/or adjacent village, who is the authority for determining the question binding the State as well as the villagers. This case also involves the question as to whether a judgment or decree in village boundary dispute in which the State Govt. was not a party can be binding on it. As such, we desire that the learned Advocate General, Nagaland should appear on behalf of the Respondents. The matter should be thrashed out once for all. This case also involves the question as to whether a judgment or decree in village boundary dispute in which the State Govt. was not a party can be binding on it. As such, we desire that the learned Advocate General, Nagaland should appear on behalf of the Respondents. The matter should be thrashed out once for all. Although there are decisions of the court to demarcate the boundary of a village, we want it to be further clarified in the instant case." 3. We have accordingly heard the learned Advocate General, Nagaland on the aforesaid substantial question of law and his submissions are as below:- (a) In so far as the first question is concerned, learned Advocate General submits that every village in Nagaland enjoys village land according to custom though the villages are required to be recognised by the Government. Learned Advocate General has further stated that no steps have been taken by the Government as yet to demarcate the boundaries of the villages though it is felt by the Government that the same might be necessary to avoid boundary disputes. (b) On the question regarding the authority for deciding the boundary dispute, our attention has been invited to the provisions contained in the Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act, 1978, section 14 (2) of which states that in case of dispute between villages falling in different areas or districts two or more Village Councils may settle a dispute in a joint session or refer it to the appropriate authority. As to the expression "appropriate authority" we have been referred to Rule 5 of the connected Rules which reads:- "5. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY IN CASE OF INTER -AREA AND INTER-DISTRICT DISPUTES. For the purpose of sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Act, the appropriate authority; (i) in case of a dispute between two villages of the same area of the same district, it shall be the Deputy Commissioner and, (ii) in case of dispute between villages of different districts it shall be the Commissioner of Nagaland." In this connection, Section 33 of the Act is also brought to our notice which has dealt with the powers and duties of the Area Council. Sub section (2) of this section states that the Area Council shall settle disputes if it is voluntarily referred to it by two or more contesting Village Councils, or is required to do so by the Deputy Commissioner or the State Government. We have been also referred to section 52 of the Act which has stated that all powers, rights and duties given by this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other powers, rights and duties conferred by any Act, law or custom and all such other powers, rights and duties may be exercised and put in force in the same manner by the same authority as if this Act has not been passed. The effect of this, according to the learned Advocate Genera], is that civil court's right and power to deal with boundary dispute has not been affected. As the present dispute had arisen before the enactment of this Act, we have to refer to the Nagaland Village, Area and Regional Councils Act, 1970 which got repealed by section 51 of the aforesaid Act. Section 68 of the repealed Act had also contained a provision similar to section 50 of the new Act. The effect of all these provisions is that decision given by civil court in matter relating to a dispute between two villages would be valid and binding on the parties. (c) On the third question mentioned in the order of 10. 3. 86, the submission of the learned Advocate General is that the decision rendered by competent courts relating to village boundary disputes would be binding on the State Government. 4. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Advocate General based on the provisions of the aforesaid two Acts, there can be no doubt that the (learned Additional Deputy Commissioner bad the right and authority to decide the dispute in question. Further, that decision has to be regarded as binding- on all concerned including the State. As the decision of the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner in the present case was upheld by this Court in MA (F) 2 (K) /76, it is fairly stated by Shri Phukan appearing for Teshiho that this village is equally bound by the order rendered by this court on 6. 4. 82. As the decision of the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner in the present case was upheld by this Court in MA (F) 2 (K) /76, it is fairly stated by Shri Phukan appearing for Teshiho that this village is equally bound by the order rendered by this court on 6. 4. 82. Learned counsel has only contended that to protect the interest of Toshiho it has to be seen that the Executing court does not go beyond the decree. Shri Sarrca appearing for the Khehoi states that all that the petitioner wants is that the decree of this Court should be executed He has not prayed, indeed he cannot, that the executing court should go behind the decree. This being the stand of the rival villages, we do not understand as to why such a situation arose which led even a Hon'ble Minister of the Government to interfere in the matter. From the affidavits filed by the Minister, the concerned MLA and the Deputy Commissioner what we find is that they had to interfere and to ask the Additional Deputy Commissioner to keep execution in abeyance in view of the emergent law and order problem. The Hon'ble Minister has stated that his whole intention in asking the Additional Deputy Commissioner to keep the execution in abeyance was to save the situation from imminent danger of bloodshed and loss of property. Shri Vikoshe Sema has averred that "the eviction of Naga village more particularly Sema village was never heard of in the history when the land under the occupation of a village is not Government's land, and as such there was likelihood of breach of peace and imminent danger of loss of life and property in the event of eviction." Being confronted with such a situation, this deponent requested the Additional Deputy Commissioner to keep the execution in abeyance to save emergent situation and with bona fide belief to maintain peace and tranquility in the area. The Deputy Commissioner as well has stated there were apprehensions that the situation might go out of hand to the point of no return and there might have been bloodshed amongst the conflicting parties as it happens in tribal feuds. 5. The Deputy Commissioner as well has stated there were apprehensions that the situation might go out of hand to the point of no return and there might have been bloodshed amongst the conflicting parties as it happens in tribal feuds. 5. Relying on the aforesaid statements, it has been contended by Shri Angatni that neither the Minister for Excise, nor the concerned MLA, and not even the Deputy Commissioner had any mala fide intention in asking the Additional Deputy Commissioner to keep the 'execution in abeyance. It may be that the actions were bona fide but then we are of the definite view that all the aforesaid persons over stepped the authority of law in having asked the Additional Deputy Commissioner not to carry out the order even of this Court. This can well be regarded as interference with the course of administration of justice which we strongly deprecate. If there was any apprehension of bloodshed or of a situation going out of hand, the proper course to be taken by these respondents was to approach this Court for appropriate orders instead of prevailing upon the executing court to keep the matter in abeyance. A judicial order passed by this Court could not have been made ineffective in the way it was sought to be done. The actions taken by these respondents were therefore not within the parameters of law. As we do not however doubt their bonafide, we do not propose to take any further action in this regard. We however wonder how could there have been any question of bloodshed when Toshiho is still ready and willing to abide by the demarcation which had been made by the Additional Deputy Commissioner whose decision had been upheld by this Court in the aforesaid appeal. 6. In view of all the above, we Direct the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner to execute the earlier order of this Court in which it was made clear that if there by any land under the occupation of Toshiho which did not fell within the village of Khehoi as per the demarcated boundary they would not be evicted therefrom. 6. In view of all the above, we Direct the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner to execute the earlier order of this Court in which it was made clear that if there by any land under the occupation of Toshiho which did not fell within the village of Khehoi as per the demarcated boundary they would not be evicted therefrom. In view of this and in view of the very fair stand taken by Shri Phukan in stating that Toshiho is bound hands and feet by the earlier order of this Court, we direct the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner to act as per the earlier order passed by this Court) We wish to make it clear that no action by /(he Deputy Commissioner, Kohima, would be taken in pursuance of his V letter No. REV/15/54/75 dated 6th December, 198<* as at Annexure-L with regard to the land in possession of Khehoi village within the boundary earlier demarcated by the Additional Deputy Commissioner. In case it be found that Khehoi has transgressed the aforesaid boundary, it would be open to the Deputy Commissioner to take action against it in accordance with law. 7. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Before proceeding with the execution, the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner would inform both the parties and would see to the quick end of the case. JUDGE. JUDGE.