JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice P K Musahary 1. I have heard Mr. T. Kaza, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Y. Longkumar, learned Govt. Advocate, Nagaland. Also heard Mr. Taka Masa, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4. The petitioner-village council is challenging the order dated 20.11.2009 passed by the Respondent No. 3, SDO(Civil) Sechu-zubza under Kohima District, whereby a collective fine of Rs. 1 lac has been imposed on the petitioner-village for alleged willful damage and destruction of various properties belonging to Respondent No. 4, Sechuma Village Council with direction to deposit the said amount on or before 18.12.2009 and in default, the amount shall be deducted from the VDB grant-in-aid fund of the petitioner village to be realised through the Project Director, DRDA, Kohima. 2. Before passing the impugned order aforesaid a show cause notice dated 13.1.2009 was issued by the respondent-SDO upon the Chairman of the petitioner-village asking it as to why legal action should not be initiated for knowingly damaging and destroying the timber, logs etc. at Thenyira, Sechuma by the petitioner village, Mezuma on 28.9.2009. The said show cause notice was issued on the basis of a complaint received from the respondent-village council. The petitioner-village council submitted the reply to the show cause on 22.10.2009 addressed to the respondent-SDO. The show cause reply was signed by village council members, head Gaonbura and other Gaonburas denying the allegations. In the said show cause reply it was clarified that the alleged collection of timbers and fanta by the Mezuma villagers on 28.9.09 was purely within the jurisdiction of Mezuma village. It was further clarified that the sketch map of Thenyira land was prepared by the Angami Public Organisation (APO) without consulting the concerned two villagers and therefore, the claim of the respondent-village was based on a wrong sketch map. The petitioner's case is that the respondent-SDO passed the impugned order imposing the collective fine of Rs. 1 lac on Mezuma Village Council without application of mind and without any jurisdiction inasmuch as the allegation brought against the petitioner-village council is commercial in nature and the respondent-SDO has no authority to pass the impugned order by exercising administrative power in a matter involving dispute over boundaries between two villages. At best, the respondent-SDO can only refer the matter to the appropriate court to decide the matter and has no power to impose fine. At best, the respondent-SDO can only refer the matter to the appropriate court to decide the matter and has no power to impose fine. It is also contended by the petitioner that since the case is purely civil in nature, the aggrieved party has to institute civil suit before an appropriate court/forum. 3. The respondent No. 4, contesting Sechuma Village Council, responded to the writ petition by filing a counter affidavit through its chairman. The backdrop of the case has been narrated in the said counter affidavit. It is stated that there was a land dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 over an area known as Thenyira and the said dispute was settled in favour of the respondent No. 4 by the elders of Western Angami Gaon Buras and elders by a judgment dated 4.3.1972. The said judgment was upheld by the Circle Officer, Sechu vide order dated 30.4.1982. The said Western Angami Elders by their judgment dated 20.2.1986 reaffirmed its earlier judgment dated 4.3.1972 and approached the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Sechu (hereinafter in short 'EAC') requesting him to uphold the said judgment and accordingly the EAC Sechu by his letter dated 6.4.1988 requested the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Kohima for taking necessary action. Accordingly, the respondent-Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 18.5.1989 reaffirmed the aforesaid decision of the Western Angami Elders and the Circle Officer's order dated 30.4.1982. The petitioner village council then filed a case before the APO, but it was not accepted by the APO rather re-affirmed the judgment of the Western Angami Elders dated 4.3.1972. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before this court, which was registered as FA No. 4(K)/1994 but the said appeal was rejected by a judgment dated 31.3.1995. Pursuant to the judgment of this court the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Kohima by an order dated 12.4.95 passed in JUD/2/89 directed for demarcation of boundary between two villages after spot verification by the representatives of the parties. In compliance to Addl. Deputy Commissioner's order a spot verification was done on 22.2.1996 and thereafter the EAC Sechu demarcated the boundary vide order No. JUD-3/08/96 dated 16.7.1996. 4. Deputy Commissioner, Kohima by an order dated 12.4.95 passed in JUD/2/89 directed for demarcation of boundary between two villages after spot verification by the representatives of the parties. In compliance to Addl. Deputy Commissioner's order a spot verification was done on 22.2.1996 and thereafter the EAC Sechu demarcated the boundary vide order No. JUD-3/08/96 dated 16.7.1996. 4. The petitioner, being further aggrieved by the judgment and order in the said First Appeal, filed a Letters Patent Appeal being LPA (T) No. 833 of 1996 but the said LPA was also dismissed by this court vide judgment dated 13.5.1997 upholding the judgment dated 31.3.1995 passed in the F.A. No. 4(K)/94. 5. The boundary dispute between the petitioner and the respondent village stood settled but it got renewed when 3(three) former members of the judicial board of APO who participated in the boundary demarcation without any reason or justification issued three certificates dated 4.7.2004, 6.7.2004 and 9.7.2004 withdrawing the signatures they put on the sketch map of disputed area since the map of Thenyira was not prepared by them and the demarcation was not done to their satisfaction. On the representation made by the respondent No. 4, the President of APO by his letter dated 10.5.2005 asked for explanation from the aforesaid three former members of the judicial board of APO whereupon they informed that they had a meeting on 10.5.2005 and reviewed their decision confirming that the boundaries of the Thenyira were drawn correctly. Thereafter, respondent-Deputy Commissioner upon hearing the parties passed an order on 14.10.2005 in JUD/2/89 declaring the area demarcated by a team of APO, judicial member, WAPO, DBs and EAC Sechu as final boundary demarcation between two villages and declaring Thenyira forest area to be the land of Sechuma village (respondent-4) and declaring the said village as the sole rightful owner of the said land and other things attached to the lands without any hindrance and disturbance. 6. The respondent-village further contended that the aforesaid order of the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima had attained its finality inasmuch as it was not challenged by the petitioner village council before any forum. The petitioner-village council has no ownership, authority and right over Thenyira forest land and so the villagers of the said village cannot extract any log, timber, firewood etc. therefrom. The respondent-village further contended that the aforesaid order of the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima had attained its finality inasmuch as it was not challenged by the petitioner village council before any forum. The petitioner-village council has no ownership, authority and right over Thenyira forest land and so the villagers of the said village cannot extract any log, timber, firewood etc. therefrom. The respondent village council had alleged that some youths from the petitioner-village on earlier occasion had stolen logs etc from the Thenyira area and it had to lodge an FIR, on the basis of which a criminal case was registered. The Judicial Magistrate, Kohima by a judgement dated 24.8.2004 passed in GR Case No. 287/03 (PS) found the villagers of the petitioner's council guilty and convicted them under Section 379/ 411/ 34 IPC. The respondent-village council also contends that the members of the petitioner village council have repeated the illegal action for which the respondent village council had to lodge a complaint before the respondent-SDO for taking prompt action against the petitioner village for destroying timbers in Thenyira, forest on 28.9.09. The respondent-SDO on receipt of the complaint issued a show cause notice which led to issuance of the impugned order. Supporting the action of the respondent-authority in issuing the impugned order, the respondent No. 4 contends that the collective fine was imposed as compensation for willful damage of round logs etc worth lacs of rupees and also for willful and repeated violation of the orders, judgments passed by competent courts and refusal of the petitioners village council to hand over the culprits. 7. The State-Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 have also filed a common affidavit-in-opposition in reply to the contentions of the writ petitioner. Supporting the action of the respondent-SDO it is stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that the action of the SDO is independent of order imposing collective fine against the petitioner-village for willful damage of logs worth lacs of rupees and for repeated violation of various orders passed by the competent courts and also their refusal to hand over the culprits. They also claimed that the action of the respondent-SDO is independent of the criminal liabilities and it has jurisdiction to impose fine in exercise of its administrative power on the petitioner village. They also claimed that the action of the respondent-SDO is independent of the criminal liabilities and it has jurisdiction to impose fine in exercise of its administrative power on the petitioner village. The respondent-authorities, in their affidavit, also claimed that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent village had attained its finality and the respondent No. 3 issued the impugned order in exercise of its administrative power in order to uphold the rule of law. 8. The petitioner has filed no rejoinder to the counter affidavits filed by the respondents. 9. From the pleadings of the respondent-authorities and the private respondent No. 4 it appears that the impugned order was issued on the strength of various orders passed by the authorities concerned at different points of time in regard to boundary dispute between the two villages concerned. All the aforesaid orders passed are matters of record and all the relevant orders passed by different courts have been made available in the pleadings of the parties. One can conveniently refer to and peruse the judgment dated 31.3.1995 rendered by a Single Bench in First Appeal No. 4(K)/1994 and also judgment and order dated 13.5.97 passed by a Division Bench of this court in LPA (T) No. 833/1996 (Annexurs-G & K respectively to the affidavit-in-opposition of respondent No. 4). In the judgment dated 31.3.1995, the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 observed as follows: 2. The dispute relates to land and is between 2(two) villages, viz., Mezoma village (appellant) and Sechuma village (respondent). Inspite of the fact that the first order was rendered on 4.3.72 by the G.B.s and other village elders of the area, declaring the dispute land to be of Sechuma village, which was followed by series of other judgments as mentioned above, the villagers of these 2 villages are still agitating the matter. On perusal of the above orders, it appears to me that the appellant has lost in every attempt inasmuch as all the impugned orders have gone against the appellant village. On careful perusal of the order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, it appears the dispute was finally settled. On perusal of the above orders, it appears to me that the appellant has lost in every attempt inasmuch as all the impugned orders have gone against the appellant village. On careful perusal of the order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, it appears the dispute was finally settled. Upon careful perusal of the impugned orders, it appears every other subsequent authority has up-held the decision rendered by the village G.B.s and elders of the Western Group, obviously because of the fact that persons who had intimate knowledge of the local situation, custom, nature of dispute and the location of the land etc. had decided the dispute as a grass roots authority. 3. Strangely the appellant filed appeal before C.O. at Zubza. Although appeal as such could not have been filed before C.O. under the provision of Rules for the Administration of Justice, the learned C.O. also examined the matter and upheld the decision made in 1972. The appellant village approached the E.A.C., Sechu to hear the matter again. In this attempt also the appellant village failed. On 17.12.88 the appellant village filed an appeal before the learned Deputy Commissioner, Kohima, challenging the decision rendered by the Western Angami G.B.s and Elders on 4.3.72 and all other orders subsequently passed by C.O. and E.A.C. etc. It may be stated here that it was the appellant village which approached the various Courts in that area. As stated above, the appellant village failed to obtain favourable orders. As such the appellant village took grievance against the decisions rendered by the Courts below. 4. It is about 23 years since the first order in this case was rendered by the Western Angami G.B.s and Elders on 4.3.72. It is not the case of the appellant that they did not recognize this forum of Western Angami G.B.s and Elders when the matter was adjudicated upon by this forum. No doubt the appellant village was aggrieved by the decision rendered by the said authority. However, the appellant village cannot take the grievance that the said authority had imposed jurisdiction on the appellant village. No such grievance was taken even subsequently. 10. No doubt the appellant village was aggrieved by the decision rendered by the said authority. However, the appellant village cannot take the grievance that the said authority had imposed jurisdiction on the appellant village. No such grievance was taken even subsequently. 10. Over and above, learned Single Bench also observed that it is not the case of the appellant that the appellant (present petitioner) did not have adequate opportunities to agitate the matter and in fact the appellant has done what it could do during the last 23 years or so and it is time now that the matter should be laid to rest inasmuch as a matter which has been finally settled should not be allowed to unsettle by re-agitating the same issue. The learned Division Bench in the judgment dated 13.5.1997, observed that the dispute between the parties relates to a forest land situated between two villages namely Mazuma and Sechuma. The Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, 1937 governs disposal and decision of such disputes. Rule 24A specifically provides that a tribal court may try and hear a case as may be empowered by the Deputy Commissioner with the approval of the Governor. Rule 34 provides for appellate powers of Deputy Commissioner and Rule 35 lays down that the spirit of the Code of Civil Procedure to be followed in disposal of such cases. The Division Bench also in paragraph 5 of the said judgment noted the important points as under: 5...........................The first order was passed by the Village Gaon Buras and other orders of the area on 4.3.72. This decision arrived at by the Village Gaon Buras and elders was upheld. The learned Single Judge has further observed and rightly so, that these are the persons who had intimate knowledge of the local situation, customs, nature of dispute and location of the land etc. and they are competent authority at the grass-root level. There is consistent and concurrent finding of facts at every stage. The appellant filed an appeal before the Circle Officer at Zubza, although no such appeal is provided for under the Rules for Administration of justice. However, the Circle Officer examined the matter and upheld the order passed by the Gaon Buras and village elders. Thereafter, the appellant approached the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Sechu. Here again they failed. The appellant filed an appeal before the Circle Officer at Zubza, although no such appeal is provided for under the Rules for Administration of justice. However, the Circle Officer examined the matter and upheld the order passed by the Gaon Buras and village elders. Thereafter, the appellant approached the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Sechu. Here again they failed. A second appeal was filed on 17.12.88 before the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima challenging the decision rendered by the Gaon Buras and village elders on 4.3.72 and all other subsequent orders passed by the Circle Officer and the Extra Assistant Commissioner. The main ground of attack was that the Angami Public Organization is not a statutory body constituted under the rules and hence the decision rendered by it was not tenable in law. Now, this argument was not accepted. It may be noted that it was the appellant who approached the Angami Public organization and invoked its jurisdiction, and when the order was not in their favour they came and complained that it had no jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge has observed that even if the order passed by the Angami Public organization is ignored and excluded from consideration, the appellants are bound by the order dated 18.5.89 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, and this is an order on appeal. It is not an original order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. This appellate order was challenged before the learned Single Judge in appeal, who by the impugned order has rejected the same. 11. From the above, it can be said that there was concurrent findings and conclusion by the local/customary courts constituted under the Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, 1937 and also by the learned Single Bench as well as Division Bench and the issue has been settled finally there being no more proceeding initiated by the petitioner, particularly against the judgment of the Division Bench. The dispute over boundary between the parties having been settled finally and the petitioner having filed no rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it can be said that the petitioner has accepted the aforesaid position and that being so, the petitioner cannot now again say that the decision of the APO on the boundary issue and the sketch map of the land in dispute is not acceptable to it. In case it does so, it would not be sustainable under the law. In case it does so, it would not be sustainable under the law. The petitioner is bound to accept the position that the Thenyira forest belongs to respondent No. 4 and the petitioner has no authority to encroach upon it and carry out any activity like extraction of logs etc. For this reason any activity carried out by the petitioner in Thenyira land could be declared illegal, unauthorized and they may be prosecuted in a criminal proceeding under the appropriate provision of law. 12. It may be noted that the petitioner has been given adequate opportunity as the respondent SDO issued notice and provided chance to explain their conduct. The explanation given by the petitioner has been found unsatisfactory inasmuch as it has gone back to the early stage of dispute raised before the APO purposefully unmindful of the finality arrived at on the boundary issue with the final order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the LPA as already discussed above. The petitioner cannot be given protection against their illegal acts like cutting/extracting timber from the Thenyira forest land which is declared to be land of the respondent-village. I, therefore, hold that the petitioner village attempted to encroach upon Thenyira forest land by way of extracting the logs/timbers in an unauthorized and illegal manner and they are liable to be proceeded against as per law. There is no illegality in the action of the respondent-SDO in proceeding against the petitioner village. 13. On the question of imposition of collective fine, I find that the respondent No. 4 unilaterally and without making an assessment of the loss of properties awarded the fine. No record has been placed before this court that a loss to the extent of rupees one lakh caused to the respondent village by the petitioner. It was incumbent upon respondent-SDO to engage some independent organization or a group of persons at home in calculating the loss objectively and the same having not been done, this court finds it difficult to accept the order of collective fine against the petitioner. Moreover, the order of collective fine is having an overtone of biasness, impartiality and unreasonableness inasmuch as the impugned order provides for deduction of the fine amount, in case it fails to deposit as directed, from the VDB grant-in-aid fund of the village through the Project Director, DRDA, Kohima. Moreover, the order of collective fine is having an overtone of biasness, impartiality and unreasonableness inasmuch as the impugned order provides for deduction of the fine amount, in case it fails to deposit as directed, from the VDB grant-in-aid fund of the village through the Project Director, DRDA, Kohima. In other words, the respondent-SDO has played a role of an autocrat by proposing to deprive the petitioner village of all the benefits under the developmental schemes taken up by the Government. This is too much. What is more to be seen is that imposition of collective fine was prevalent in the British India as a measure of dominance and suppression over the subject Indians. It is just unthinkable that a small administrator in a remote corner of the country like Nagaland, even after more than six decades of achieving independence could think of a colonial punishment like 'collective fine' on poor villagers in the name of little excess committed by the villagers. Such attitude of the officers, howsoever high in the administrative hierarchy, imbibed with the ill-spirit of colonial rule, cannot be tolerated in the present day free India. If the imposition of collective fine is allowed or approved it would encourage more distrust and misunderstanding between inmates of two villages and it is expedient for the respondent-authorities to bring them to negotiating table for making an amicable settlement between the parties on the question of compensation, if any, to be paid to the respondent-village with the help of local customary forum. The impugned order in so far as it relates to "imposition of collective fine" is concerned, is quashed and set aside. The respondent-SDO is given liberty to make fresh assessment of the loss if any suffered by the respondent No. 4, through an independent body or person having expertise in assessing the damage and award reasonable compensation if so advised or found to be entitled. 14. Under Section 14 of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, 1937, as amended, all inhabitants of the State of Nagaland are bound to aid the regular police and the rural police when required to do so for the maintenance of law and order or the apprehension of offenders and whoever fails to do so shall be liable to fine not exceeding Rs. 250/- for each such failure to be adjudged by the Mauzadars, Gaonburas, Chiefs, Headman of Khels, or other Chief Village authority or by the Deputy Commissioner, Addl. Deputy Commissioner or such officers as may be authorized by the State Government in that behalf. This provision of imposing fine can not be used or mistaken for power to impose 'collective fine' which is not at all provided under the existing local Act and Rules. With the aforesaid directions and observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.