Nishitendu Chaudhury, J.—By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Old Jalukie Village Council, represented by its Chairman, has approached this Court challenging the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 03.07.2006 followed by agreement dated 30.10.2009 entered into between the Government and the private respondent as to the acquisition of 510.62 acres of land and also subsequent notification, issued under Section 3(1) of the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965, in this regard for acquisition of the land. The basic challenge of the writ petitioners is that the Old Jalukie Village, being the owner of the acquired land, is entitled to compensation payable under Section 11 of the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ' the 1965 Act') and that the private respondent, being tenant under the writ petitioners, has no authority either to enter into any agreement for acquisition of the land by the Government or to receive compensation against such acquisition made under the provisions of the 1965 Act. 2. The writ petitioners have pleaded by annexing a copy of the judgment passed by this Court on 06.08.1980 in WP(C) 3(K)/1975 that this Court had found the Old Jalukie village to be owner of the land in question thereupon an observation was made that the present private respondent would be at liberty to get settlement from the Old Jalukie Village Council on such terms as may be mutually agreed upon within a period of 3 (three) months. This judgment dated 06.08.1980 was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India but the same was eventually dismissed on 04.10.1982. Thereafter, a reference case being No. 1/1983 was raised before the jurisdictional Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kohima which stood subsequently transferred to the Court of learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Peren in course of time with the creation of Peren district. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Peren, by order dated 07.11.1990, passed an order as follows: "i) The Kezanglwa village shall be allowed to remain as it is undisturbed in the present location. ii) Boundary of Kezanglwa village shall be in accordance with the boundary description as given by the Government when the village was recognized. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Peren, by order dated 07.11.1990, passed an order as follows: "i) The Kezanglwa village shall be allowed to remain as it is undisturbed in the present location. ii) Boundary of Kezanglwa village shall be in accordance with the boundary description as given by the Government when the village was recognized. iii) In recognition of the right of ownership of Jalukie Old village as per the judgment of the Honourable Gauhati High Court and affirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court of India, Kezanglwa village shall pay a token lunget to the Jalukie Old village, the sum of which shall be Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hundred) per year. iv) The produce of the river Mungleu throughout the entire length of Kezanglwa with Jalukie Old village boundary, shall be equally shared by both the villages." 3. It is the case of the writ petitioners that on the basis of such settlement arrived at before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Peren, the private respondent has been paying Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hundred) as 'lunget' to the present petitioners and thus, the private respondent is merely a tenant under the writ petitioners and they have not attained right, title and interest over the land. This being the position, they cannot be 'the owner of the land' within the meaning of Section 3(2) of the 1965 Act. Consequently the private respondent is not entitled to compensation to be assessed and paid under Section 11 of the 1965 Act. The writ petitioners, therefore, prayed for adjudging the aforesaid agreements between the private respondent and the Government as illegal and for appropriate direction for payment of compensation against the acquisition of land to the petitioners. It needs to be mentioned here that by a notification, issued on 17.12.2008 under Section 3(1) of the 1965 Act, the Deputy Commissioner, Peren invited objection from any person/party in regard to the acquisition of the land and the present petitioners filed objection there-against on 12.05.2009 stating their absolute ownership over the land in question. On being asked by the Collectorate, the writ petitioners also claimed to have submitted a draft Memorandum of Understanding on 20.02.2009 but even thereafter without entering into an agreement with them, the Government entered into agreement with the private respondent on 30.10.2009 describing it to be the land owner of Kezanglwa village. On being asked by the Collectorate, the writ petitioners also claimed to have submitted a draft Memorandum of Understanding on 20.02.2009 but even thereafter without entering into an agreement with them, the Government entered into agreement with the private respondent on 30.10.2009 describing it to be the land owner of Kezanglwa village. The writ petitioners have objection to such decision of the Government holding the private respondent to be the land owner and consequently to the entitlement of the private respondent to get compensation. 4. The respondent No. 4 has submitted an affidavit-in-opposition in this case and according to them the original owner of the land in question is the Old Jalukie village but subsequently by proceeding in Reference Case No. 1/1983, referred to above, the land was 'given to them' by the original owners on condition to pay 'lunget' at the rate of Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hundred) per year. This being the position, the Kezanglwa village has become a new village within the meaning of Section 3 of the Nagaland Village and Area Council Act, 1978 and thus it is entitled to compensation to be paid against land acquisition in question. 5. The Government has also filed an affidavit through an Additional Deputy Commissioner in the Commissionerate of Nagaland but did not choose to enter into a dispute regarding ownership of the land. It is the case of the official respondents No. 1 and 2 that the land has been acquired under Section 6(1) of the 1965 Act and since as per records, respondent No. 4 is a recognised village the government entered into agreement/MoU with it. 6. I have heard Mr. S Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. K. Sema, learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the private respondent No. 4. I have also gone through the documents annexed to the writ petition as well as affidavits-in-opposition. 7. There is no dispute at the bar that the land in question has been acquired by the Government for establishment of Model District Headquarter building under Section 3 of the 1965 Act. A. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the private respondent No. 4. I have also gone through the documents annexed to the writ petition as well as affidavits-in-opposition. 7. There is no dispute at the bar that the land in question has been acquired by the Government for establishment of Model District Headquarter building under Section 3 of the 1965 Act. Upon such acquisition, land having vested on the Government of Nagaland, the only question arises as to who are 'the owners of the land' as on the date of acquisition and as to who are the interested parties to get compensation against the land acquisition proceeding. Mr. S Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the title in regard to the land was conclusively decided by this Court in early writ petition in the year 1980 and the same attained finality once a Special Leave Petition filed there-against was dismissed in the year 1982 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There cannot be, therefore, any doubt in regard to ownership of the land and hence the official respondents acted illegally and arbitrarily in entering into agreement with the respondent No. 4 and/or to make any payment of compensation to them being the owners of the land within the meaning of Section 3 of the 1965 Act. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners there is no scope for further adjudication, inasmuch as, the matter stood already settled by judicial pronouncements. 8. Per contra, Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that there is no denial as to original title of the writ petitioners with respect to the land in question. There is no denial also to the adjudication made by this Court but once there was a settlement between the parties on 07.11.1990 in Reference Case No. 1/1983 in the Court of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Peren, the position has changed. The right of ownership of Jalukie Old village has ceased to exist after the land was 'given' to them within the meaning under Section 3(1)(a) of the Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act, 1978. According to Mr. A. Zhimomi, under Zeliang Customary Law, lunget is nothing but a tribute to the original owner in consideration of the transfer of the land and that being the position, the respondent No. 4 is the real owner of the acquired land. According to Mr. A. Zhimomi, under Zeliang Customary Law, lunget is nothing but a tribute to the original owner in consideration of the transfer of the land and that being the position, the respondent No. 4 is the real owner of the acquired land. As against a pointed question as to what would be consequence of default for payment of lunget, the learned counsel could not give any convincing reply. Clause 3 of the order dated 07.11.1990 mentions that the respondent No. 4 would continue paying Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hundred) as token lunget to the writ petitioners and thereupon Kezanglwa village shall be allowed to remain as undisturbed as in the present position. According to the learned counsel, lunget is a traditional practice and as such this Court does not have any jurisdiction to decide the nature and characteristic and/or to adjudicate as to title of the parties. Mr. Zhimomi submits that it is a fit case to referring to customary court and he has no objection if payment of compensation is stayed till final adjudication of the dispute on title. It needs to be mentioned here that although in the affidavit-in-opposition a stand of paying 'Rampowa' was taken, yet once the private respondent relies on clause (3) of the order dated 7.11.1990, this plea appears to have been impliedly abandoned. 9. Mr. K. Sema, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that the Government understood respondent No. 4 to be the real owner of the land and accordingly the impugned Memorandum of Understanding was entered into between the respondent No. 4 on one side and the Government on the other for taking the possession of the land and also for payment of compensation against acquisition under Section 3 of the 1965 Act. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the Government was never a party to the aforesaid Reference Case No. 1/1983 and it was never brought to the notice of the jurisdictional authority when the agreement was entered into between the respondent No. 4 and the Government. The only consideration before the Government was that Kezanglwa village is a recognized village. Mr. K. Sema, learned Additional Advocate General, further submits that the dispute in question is related to the land measuring 510.62 acres of Kezanglwa village for which compensation at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) per acre has already been determined by the Government. Mr. K. Sema, learned Additional Advocate General, further submits that the dispute in question is related to the land measuring 510.62 acres of Kezanglwa village for which compensation at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) per acre has already been determined by the Government. By the said land acquisition proceeding, land was acquired from 3 (three) villages in all whereas the other villages have already been paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand) per acre. The payment in regard to the aforesaid 510.62 acres could not be disbursed owing to dispute between the writ petitioners and the respondent No. 4. The dispute between the parties is in regard to title. Writ petitioners are claiming title over the land in question and same is the claim of respondent No. 4 as well. Admittedly, the land has been acquired, possession has been taken over and the same was being put to public purpose within the meaning of Section 3 of the 1965 Act. Section 3(2) of the 1965 Act requires that an order under Sub-section 1 has to be served in the prescribed manner on the 'owners of the land and when the order relates to the land in occupation of tenant, also on such tenant'. Section 6(3) of the Act provides that upon such acquisition, land vests on the Government and so the acquired property now belongs to the Government of Nagaland. Section 11 of the 1965 Act requires that compensation is to be paid subject to provision of sub-Section (2). When the land is acquired under Section 6 or Section 9, compensation amount has to be determined by the Collector and in so doing Collector is to take into consideration the market value of land for a period of 5 years preceding the date of publication under Section 6(1) of the Act. Clause (2) of the Section 11, further, provides that compensation determined under Sub-section (1) of the said Section, the Collector is to make an award in accordance with the principles set out in Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Clause (2) of the Section 11, further, provides that compensation determined under Sub-section (1) of the said Section, the Collector is to make an award in accordance with the principles set out in Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Under Section 11 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act'), Collector is duty bound to enquire into the objection, if any, made by the persons interested and thereupon to make award not only in regard to the true area of the land and compensation payable thereof but also on apportionment of compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land independent of whether they have filed their claim or not. So on perusal of Section 3, 6 and 11 of the 1965 Act as well as Section 11 of the 1894 Act, it appears that Collector is vested with the duties and responsibilities to make necessary enquiry not only in regard to determination of compensation payable against acquisition of a land but the persons to whom such payment to be made and also apportionment of such payments if there are more than one interested persons. This being the position, Collector is the primary authority to hold enquiry as to who is 'the owner of the land' and in appropriate case as to who is the tenant over the land in question. Here is a case where not only the ownership of the land has been questioned but also the nature and status of the private respondent No. 4, being in occupation of the land at the time of acquisition, have also been challenged. While it is the case of the respondent No. 4 that they have acquired ownership over the land, the writ petitioners dispute the same and denigrate the respondent No. 4 to the status of the tenant within the meaning of Section 3(2). Status of respondent No. 4 qua the acquired land will depend upon interpretation of the word 'lunget' as understood in the customary law, legend and tradition of the area and the tribe in question. Such dispute is inherent in order dated 07.11.1990, basing on which the private respondent No. 4 has staked claim of land in question. Had the order dated 07.11.1990 contained any default clause as to payment of lunget, the dispute would have either withered away or would have existed superficially. Such dispute is inherent in order dated 07.11.1990, basing on which the private respondent No. 4 has staked claim of land in question. Had the order dated 07.11.1990 contained any default clause as to payment of lunget, the dispute would have either withered away or would have existed superficially. All these questions being disputed and apart from that touching interpretation of customary law, cannot be gone into under writ jurisdiction. Apart from that it is the duty of the Collector to find out as to who is/are to be paid the compensation against the acquisition of the aforesaid plot of 510.62 acres of land referred to above. 10. After hearing the learned counsel and observing aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the jurisdictional Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Peren to make necessary enquiry within the meaning of Section 11 of the 1965 Act as well as same section of 1894 Act and to arrive at a decision as to the person(s) interested in the land and the quantum of compensation to be paid to them along with apportionment, if necessary. The same shall be done within a period of 6 (six) months from today. Till a final adjudication is arrived at as to ownership of the land in question and the status of the parties in this writ petition in the light of order dated 07.11.1990 referred to above, no payment of compensation shall be made. The parties shall be at liberty to place their respective cases before the Collector/Deputy Commissioner in course of the proceeding. It is needless to mention that the land having vested on the Government already, the ongoing process of construction shall not be impeded in anyway. The compensation amount determined as not disbursed with respect to 510.62 acres referred to above shall be invested in any fixed deposit scheme under any nationalized bank by the Government so that the same can be disbursed to the eligible interested person after the dispute as to claim of compensation is resolved finally. 11. No order as to cost.