JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri L. Sharat Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri D. Julius Riamei, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent and Shri N. Ibotombi, learned Addl. Advocate General, Manipur assisted by Shri A. Rommel, learned Jr. Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing and setting aside the Government order dated 29-05-2009 issued by the Principal Secretary (Hills), Government of Manipur by which the Government order dated 25-09-2008 has been revoked with the consequential result that the earlier two Government orders dated 12-02-2004 and 05-12-2006 are restored in the interest of hill people. 3. According to the petitioner, Shri Langjachin established the Behiang village as its founder and Chief and had allowed Shri Tuanthong who hailed from erstwhile Burma (now Myanmar) to stay and live in the Behiang Village as permissive possessor and licensee along with some of his followers. As seen from the order passed by the SDO/SW, Shri B.C. Gasper in Case No. 43 SW of 1922-23, the occupation of certain land by Shri Tuanthong in Behiang Village was confirmed and since then, the theory of Behiang (Langjachin) and Behiang (T) came into existence, although both were within Behiang Village. In a suit being Title Suit No. 26 of 1965 instituted by Shri Tongjapao & 34 others for a decree declaring them to be the sole owners of the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint, a judgment dated 21-07-1969 had been delivered by the Second Subordinate Judge, Manipur decreeing the suit ex-parte with costs that they were the sole owners of the said suit land. The said judgment dated 21-07-1969 was challenged by Shri Tuanthong Ngaite, one of the defendants therein by way of a Civil Appeal No. 54 of 1969 before the District Judge, Manipur who dismissed it on 09-12-1969 as barred by limitation. The said judgment dated 21-07-1969 was challenged by Shri Tuanthong Ngaite, one of the defendants therein by way of a Civil Appeal No. 54 of 1969 before the District Judge, Manipur who dismissed it on 09-12-1969 as barred by limitation. Thereafter, Shri Lianzamung Ngaite (on his death by his LRs), son of Shri Tuanthong Ngaite filed an Original Suit being O.S. No. 2/70/29/70/38/70/92/72 before the Second Subordinate Judge, Manipur for declaring him as the rightful Chief of the Suit Land described in the schedule and for setting aside the decree in Title Suit No. 26 of 1965 which was dismissed by the learned Judge with cost vide its order dated 26-11-1973 which came to be challenged by Smt. Awizaching Ngaite, wife of Lianzamung Ngaite by way of a Civil Appeal No. 61 of 1973 which was also dismissed by the learned District Judge vide its order dated 28-12-1974. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 28-12-1974 of the learned District Judge, Smt. Awizaching Ngaite preferred another appeal being Appeal From Appellate Decree No. 3 of 1975 which was also dismissed on 22-06-1989 by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench. Therefore, the said judgment dated 21-07-1969 passed by the learned Second Subordinate Judge, Manipur had attained its finality. 3.1 The private respondent, Shri Paodamang Ngaite who, to the petitioner, is the son of the brother of Shri Tuanthong Ngaite, submitted a representation dated 06-10-2008 to the State Government and while the same was pending for consideration, he filed two writ petitions being W.P. (C) No. 802 of 2008 challenging the vires of the verdicts of the Civil Courts directly or indirectly on some flimsy grounds and W.P. (C) No. 27 of 2009 challenging the validity of the Government order dated 24-11-2008 passed in favour of the petitioner. The said writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 802 of 2008 was disposed of by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court vide its order dated 03-06-2009 with a direction to the petitioner therein to submit a fresh copy of his representation dated 06-10-2008 and that on receipt of it by the State Government, the same be disposed of within three months there from. In view of the order dated 03-06-2009 passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, the other writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 27 of 2009 came to be disposed of on the same day as infructuous. In view of the order dated 03-06-2009 passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, the other writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 27 of 2009 came to be disposed of on the same day as infructuous. But unfortunately, the State Government had, by then, issued the impugned order dated 29-05-2009 restoring its earlier Government orders dated 12-02-2004 and 05-12-2006 in the interest of hill people. 4. The instant writ petition is contested by the private respondent, Shri Paodamang Ngaite by filing two affidavits-in-opposition-one, on 05-11-2009 and another, on 01-02-2010 wherein it is stated that Shri Langjachin established the Behiang Village but he sold it with its Chiefship to Shri Tuanthong Ngaite for a consideration of Rs. 100/- with the understanding that Shri Langjachin would remain as the Chief of Behiang (Langjachin) and after his death, Shri Tuanthong Ngaite would take over the said Behiang (Langjachin) village by merging it with the main village i.e. Behiang Village, as is evident from the order of SDO/SW dated 28-01-1923 passed in Case No. 43/S.W. of 1922-23. In spite of the said understanding, Shri Langjachin dishonestly contested the right of Shri Tuanthong Ngaite as regards the letting out of a Jhum cultivation in favour of Shri Mangjalen before the President, Manipur State Darbar in Case No. 444-South of 1930/31 wherein the State Darbar passed an order dated 15-04-1931 to the effect that Shri Tuanthong Ngaite was justified in granting the right of Jhum cultivation as he was very much the Chief of Behiang Village. 4.1 During the lifetime of Shri Langjachin, his only issue i.e., daughter, Mrs. Dimkhochin got married to Shri Jamkhogin who was allowed by Shri Tuanthong Ngaite to enjoy the privilege which Shri Langjachin used to enjoy during his lifetime, although Shri Jamkhogin had no right, title and interest over the Behiang Village. Shri Jamkhogin died sometime in the year 1960 leaving behind him his two sons namely, (a) Mr. Tongkhanlian and (b) Mr. Paukhomang. During the lifetime of Shri Jamkhogin, he instituted a Civil Case No. 163-N.C.C. of 1946-47 before the Court of Circle Officer, Churachandpur posing himself to be the Chief of Behiang (Langjachin) Village against Shri Tuanthong Ngaite, Chief of Behiang Village claiming half of 35 Phoupots received as Lousal by Shri Tuanthong Ngaite. Tongkhanlian and (b) Mr. Paukhomang. During the lifetime of Shri Jamkhogin, he instituted a Civil Case No. 163-N.C.C. of 1946-47 before the Court of Circle Officer, Churachandpur posing himself to be the Chief of Behiang (Langjachin) Village against Shri Tuanthong Ngaite, Chief of Behiang Village claiming half of 35 Phoupots received as Lousal by Shri Tuanthong Ngaite. The Hon’ble Court of Circle Officer vide its order dated 18-11-1947 rejected Shri Jamkhogin’s claim and being aggrieved by it, Shri Jamkhogin preferred a Hill Civil Appeal Case No. 103 of 1947-48 before the Court of Hill Bench, Manipur which was allowed vide its order dated 01-03-1948. Shri Tuanthong Ngaite preferred an appeal being C.C. 1st Bench Civil Appeal Case No. 510 of 1948-49 before the Chief Court, Manipur which was dismissed as barred by limitation vide its order dated 28-03-1949. Shri Tuanthong Ngaite preferred a revision petition before his Highness in the Judicial Council. However, during the pendency of the said case, the reign of Maharaja of Manipur stood merged into the Union of India and the Maharaja was replaced by the Chief Commissioner, Manipur. Accordingly, the said Revision Case came to be registered as C.C. Hill Civil Revision No. 4 of 1953 before the Court of Chief Commissioner, Manipur (Judicial Council). The Hon’ble Court of the Chief Commissioner, Manipur, after hearing both the parties and setting aside the order of the Hill Bench, confirmed the right of Shri Tuanthong Ngaite, uncle of the private respondent, Shri Paodamang Ngaite for full lousal vide its order dated 06-04-1953. The review application filed by Shri Jamkhogin against the said order dated 06-04-1953 was dismissed vide order dated 07-09-1953 of the Chief Commissioner, Manipur. Since the said court’s order dated 06-04-1953 and 07-09-1953 were not challenged further by Shri Jamkhogin, the same had attained finality. 4.2 In the year 1957, Shri Tuanthong Ngaite made an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Churachandpur praying for transfer of Chiefship to his son Shri Lianzamung Ngaite which was allowed vide its order dated 24-06-1958 passed in Misc. Matter No. 29-C of 1957. Shri Tongjapao Zou (written Tongjapao Moi by the petitioner) who is the nephew of Shri Jamkhogin fraudulently managed to obtain a permit to start a Cattle Farm within Behiang Village from SDO, Churachandpur vide its order dated 24-02-1961. Matter No. 29-C of 1957. Shri Tongjapao Zou (written Tongjapao Moi by the petitioner) who is the nephew of Shri Jamkhogin fraudulently managed to obtain a permit to start a Cattle Farm within Behiang Village from SDO, Churachandpur vide its order dated 24-02-1961. Taking advantage of it, Shri Tongjapao along with three others filed an application before the SDO, Churachandpur praying for allowing the said three others to start a Cattle Farm with the case being registered as Misc. Matter No. 18-C of 1961. However, the learned court of SDO vide its order dated 28-03-1961, instead of allowing the application, was pleased to vacate its order dated 24-02-1961. Shri Tongjapao filed another application before the learned court of SDO, Churachandpur praying for allowing him to extract forest products from the Behiang Village. His application being registered as Misc. Matter No. 10-C of 1964 was rejected by the learned court of SDO vide its order dated 09-03-1965 wherein it is observed that Shri Tuanthong Ngaite is the Chief of Behiang Village. But Shri Tongjapao in collusion with 34 (thirty four) others instituted a declaratory Civil Suit being Title Suit No. 26 of 1965 before the Second Subordinate Judge, Manipur which was decided ex-parte vide its judgment dated 21-07-1969 decreeing to the effect that Shri Tongjapao and his villagers were the sole owners of the suit land. Shri Tuanthong Ngaite preferred an appeal against the said judgment and order dated 21-07-1969 which was dismissed by the Hon’ble District Judge, Manipur in Civil Appeal No. 54 of 1969 vide its order dated 09-12-1969 on the ground of delay. The original Civil Suit being No. 2/70/29/70/38/70/92/72, Civil Appeal No. 61 of 1973 of the District Judge, Manipur and Second Appeal No. 3 of 1975 of the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench preferred by the son of Shri Tuanthong Ngaite were dismissed. Thus, the ex-parte decree/judgment dated 21-07-1969 passed by the Second Subordinate Court, Manipur in Title Suit No. 26 of 1965 had attained finality. 4.3 In reply to a letter dated 22-02-1991 of the Deputy Commissioner, the State Government vide its letter dated 22-04-1991 informed him that two villages namely Behiang Village and Behiang (Langjachin) Village are the only statutorily recognised villages as being found in the schedule of the Manipur State Hill Peoples (Administration) Regulation, 1947. 4.3 In reply to a letter dated 22-02-1991 of the Deputy Commissioner, the State Government vide its letter dated 22-04-1991 informed him that two villages namely Behiang Village and Behiang (Langjachin) Village are the only statutorily recognised villages as being found in the schedule of the Manipur State Hill Peoples (Administration) Regulation, 1947. In pursuance of a representation by Shri Tongjapao, the State Government vide its letter dated 29-08-1991 informed him that as per report of the Deputy Commissioner, he was neither the son of Shri Jamkhogin nor was he the son of Shri Lianzamung and accordingly, he was informed to approach the civil court to redress his grievance. The petitioner, Ms. Jubilee Moi challenged the Government order dated 05-12-2006 by way of a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 1 of 2007 and while the said writ petition was pending for disposal, she submitted a representation dated 20-12-2007 to which the State Government vide its order dated 25-09-2008 cancelled its earlier orders dated 12-02-2004 and 05-12-2006 and ordered to maintain status-quo in respect of the order dated 21-07-1969 of the learned Second Subordinate Judge. Being aggrieved by the Government order dated 25-09-2008, the private respondent, Shri Paodamang Ngaite submitted an exhaustive representation dated 06-10-2008 to the State Government and while the same was pending, he filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 802 of 2008 impugning the said Government order dated 25-09-2008. In the meantime, the Deputy Commissioner issued an order dated 24-11-2008 removing the private respondent from being the Chairman of the Behiang Village Authority. Therefore, the private respondent, Shri Paodamang Ngaite filed another writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 27 of 2009 challenging the Government order 24-11-2008 wherein the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to pass an interim order dated 02-02-2009 to the effect that the Government orders dated 25-09-2008 and 24-11-2008 should not be given effect to until further order. On receipt of a copy of the interim order dated 02-02-2009, the State Government re-considered the matter and accordingly, issued the impugned order. 5. To contest the instant writ petition, an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the State Government also stating therein that there are two villages namely Behiang Village (Langjachin) under the Chiefship of Shri Jamkhogin and Behiang Village under the Chiefship of Shri Tuanthong Ngaite as recorded and shown in the schedule of Manipur State Hill Peoples (Administration) Regulations, 1947. To contest the instant writ petition, an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the State Government also stating therein that there are two villages namely Behiang Village (Langjachin) under the Chiefship of Shri Jamkhogin and Behiang Village under the Chiefship of Shri Tuanthong Ngaite as recorded and shown in the schedule of Manipur State Hill Peoples (Administration) Regulations, 1947. During the period from 1982 and 1985, the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur issued various orders bifurcating Behiang Village into six machet villages and recognising separate Chiefs of those machet villages. On a representation submitted by Shri Paodomang Ngaite, Chief of Behiang Village praying for cancellation of the said orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner, the State Government, after examining the relevant records, issued an order dated 12-04-2004 cancelling the orders of bifurcation. Being aggrieved by it, the petitioner, Ms. Jubilee Moi submitted a representation dated 10-05-2004 which was considered and rejected by the State Government vide its order dated 05-12-2006 in compliance with the order dated 24-07-2006 passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court. The said orders dated 12-02-2004 and 05-12-2006 came to be challenged by the petitioner. Ms. Jubilee Moi by way of a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 1 of 2007 and on receipt of a copy of the counter filed on behalf of the State Government therein, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 20-12-2007 which was disposed of on 25-09-2008 by the State Government cancelling its earlier orders dated 12-02-2004 and 05-12-2006 with the direction for maintaining status-quo as regards the order dated 21-07-1969 passed by the Second Subordinate Judge. Being aggrieved by the said Government order dated 25-09-2008, the private respondent, Shri Paodamang Ngaite submitted a representation dated 06-10-2008 and immediately thereafter, he filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 802 of 2008 also and while the said writ petition was pending, the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur vide its order dated 24-11-2008 removed him from being the Chairman of the Behiang Village Authority. Therefore, he challenged it also by way of a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 27 of 2009 wherein the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to pass an interim order dated 02-02-2009 directing that the Government orders dated 25-09-2008 and 24-11-2008 shall not be given effect to until further order. Therefore, he challenged it also by way of a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 27 of 2009 wherein the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to pass an interim order dated 02-02-2009 directing that the Government orders dated 25-09-2008 and 24-11-2008 shall not be given effect to until further order. The State Government, after receiving the said interim order dated 02-02-2009, reconsidered and re-examined the matter and after due consideration of the materials available on record, disposed of the representation dated 06-10-2008 of the private respondent restoring its earlier orders dated 12-02-2004 and 05-12-2006 vide its impugned order. 6. It has been submitted by Shri L. Sharat Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that while issuing the impugned order, the State Government had shown no respect to the various civil court’s orders as well as that of the High Court; that the principles of natural justice have been violated and that the impugned order is bad and hence, not sustainable in law. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Nagaraj (dead) by LRs & ors. Vs. B.R. Vasudev Murthy & ors. reported in (2010) 3 SCC 353 ; Radhey Shyam & anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath & ors. reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423 and rendered by the High Court in the case of Ningom Vs. Samjamang reported in (1990) 2 GLR 331. On the other hand, Shri D. Julius Riamei, the learned counsel appearing for the private respondent has submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the instant writ petition nor has she any right to the Chiefship of the village; that the judgment dated 21-07-1969 was obtained by playing fraud on court and therefore, the same is a nullity in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SP Chengalavaraya Naidu Vs. Jaganath, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1 which is referred to in various subsequent decisions; that the said judgment dated 21-07-1969 is not binding as the issue involved therein was not as regards the Chiefship but the declaration of title of the suit land; that the said judgment was per in curium as the order dated 06-04-1953 which attained finality, was completely ignored; that as per the customs and traditions of the Kuki tribe, inheritance follows male line and no woman has any right to claim property, leave alone Chiefship of a village and that the said judgment is non-executable as per Kuki custom because only a Chief of a village can be the owner of the land. The stand of the State Government is similar to that of the private respondent and it has been submitted by Shri N. Ibotombi, learned Addl. Advocate General that while delivering the judgment, the learned Civil Judge had completely ignored the provisions of the Manipur State Hill Peoples (Administration) Regulation, 1947; that there is no any Government record recognising the petitioner as the Chief of Behiang Village and therefore, it is not clear as to how and under what circumstances, she has filed the instant writ petition; that the judgment and decree dated 21-07-1969 is not binding on the State Government because the same has been passed in a case where the State Government is not a party; that the Deputy Commissioner and the SODs have no authority to bifurcate the village into machets and recognise their Chiefs in view of a catena of decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court and therefore, the impugned order has been passed restoring its earlier orders which have cancelled the various illegal orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.S Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2013) 3 SCC 721 . 7. To appreciate the issue involved herein, it may be appropriate for this court to look at a brief historical account relating to tribes in Manipur and in particular, the Kuki tribes. The tribal areas in Manipur form a ring of hills enclosing the small valley of Imphal. The people of hills belong to a large number of tribes which can be categorised mainly into two - Nagas and Kukis. The tribal areas in Manipur form a ring of hills enclosing the small valley of Imphal. The people of hills belong to a large number of tribes which can be categorised mainly into two - Nagas and Kukis. For the present case, this court is concerned with the Kuki tribes only. The learned counsel appearing for the private respondent has produced a copy of the extract of the Handbook compiled by Mr. C.G. Grawford wherein it is stated that as regards Kuki custom, inheritance follows the male line and no female has any right to claim property and if a Kuki has no male issue of his own, his property, including his right to claim marriage price, longman etc. and his debts go to his eldest brother or his eldest brother’s son, if the brother is dead or failing brother, to the eldest of the nearest male line. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not produced any document with respect to the custom prevailing amongst the Kukis to show anything to the contrary. It appears that field studies have been carried out by the Law Research Institute, Eastern Region, Gauhati High Court, Guahati in hill areas of the North Eastern Regions including the hill areas of Manipur and its reports in respect of Kuki tribes in Manipur may be briefly summarised as under: (a) Chiefship prevailed amongst the Kukis. A Kuki Chief is the fountain of justice and his decision in any dispute is final. A Kuki Chief occupies a very high position amongst his villagers. He owns the land of the village. He can ask a village to go out and can bring in new persons to cultivate his land. He accepts rent in crops and also other presents from the villages. He even charges premium while settling fresh land. In each village there is a headman or Khullakpa whose office is hereditary. Mr. Brown, in his Statistical Account of Manipur, mentions that the Khullakpa is entirely supported by the villagers; they cultivate his fields and give him a certain proportion of the produce, both animal and vegetables of the village. On the birth of children he also receives presents and is entitled to part of the sports of chase captured by the village. According to Mr. Lewin, “In Kuki custom, everything in a village belonged to the Chief who could demand anything he required. On the birth of children he also receives presents and is entitled to part of the sports of chase captured by the village. According to Mr. Lewin, “In Kuki custom, everything in a village belonged to the Chief who could demand anything he required. At the same time, presents given to the chief were common property and might be taken by anyone.” (b) The nature of cultivation by any group of persons has a great influence on the system of land-rights they enjoy. The method of cultivation among the Kukis is generally Jhuming. But some Kukis are found to have done wet-rice and terraced cultivation in some villages. In Jhum cultivation, the tiller of the soil leaves his plot of land after cultivating it for two or three years at a time. After about 7 to 10 years, which period is known as jhum-cycle, the tiller returns to the same locality to cultivate again. The period of jhum-cycle is the period of rest for the land. If during the period of rest, the identity of the old plot is lost, then the tiller has to choose a new plot and repeat the same process of slashing, burning, sowing, harvesting etc. and moving out. In such circumstances, no permanent right can grow. If there is no fixity and continuity of possession, the question of inheriting it is useless since such inheritance will be only for a transitory period. The question of transfer also does not arise, as no sane man will purchase a piece of land if after 2/3 years, the rights over it would cease to be. The only right that can be acquired over jhum plot is, therefore, the right of use and occupation for the period of continuous cultivation i.e., one or two years. But suppose the identity of the jhum-plot can somehow be maintained and the same jhumia returns to the same plot after the period of rest and during the rest period, no one else occupies it in any way. In such circumstances, the occupation of the jhumia continues throughout the rest-period, even though no crop is grown thereon. He acquires some sort of a right over it which is not transitory. Such right can easily be passed on to others through inheritance or through transfer. In such circumstances, the occupation of the jhumia continues throughout the rest-period, even though no crop is grown thereon. He acquires some sort of a right over it which is not transitory. Such right can easily be passed on to others through inheritance or through transfer. This type of jhum-plot is as good as permanently cultivated plot and the rights acquired over it may be similar to rights over permanently owned land. (c) The Kuki tribe has a large number of sub-tribes among whom the customs vary slightly from tribe to tribe. In 1887, Mr. CA Soppitt, Asstt. Commissioner, Burma writing about the general customs among the Kukis said that only male children could inherit property. In the event of several, the eldest son would get all and was at liberty to distribute or not any share to his younger brothers. Should a man have daughters only and no sons, the property would pass to the nearest male relative of the deceased, the daughters receiving nothing. From this description, it is clear that the system among the Kukis in general is patrilineal primogeniture. In his book called “Notes on the Thadou Kuki” by Mr. William Shaw written in 1928, it has been observed by him that inheritance goes by the male line only and no female has any right to claim. (d) The ruler of Manipur developed his own system of land administration but did not impose the same on the hill people who occupied 90% of the territory under his rule. The hill-people were left undisturbed to follow their own customary land-system. After independence, on the structure left by Maharaj’s administration was superimposed the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. Under this regulation, the system of annual Patta, periodic Patta and revenue free Patta was introduced. Lands were surveyed, maps were made, Chithas written and Jamabandis prepared. The old Structure of the Raja’s time was somehow forced into the new pattern. This state affairs continued till 1960 when the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 was enacted. The State Government after independence issued annual Pattas to the tenants of the Chiefs under the Assam Land & revenue Regulation, 1886. But the position was not rectified even after the enforcement of the MLR & LR Act, 1960 in some of the Kuki villages. The State Government after independence issued annual Pattas to the tenants of the Chiefs under the Assam Land & revenue Regulation, 1886. But the position was not rectified even after the enforcement of the MLR & LR Act, 1960 in some of the Kuki villages. It was rather complicated by treating as Sarkari all unoccupied lands as well as the occupied lands covered by the annual Patta which were now cancelled under the new Government policy. The Chief’s rights have not yet been acquired by the State Government. A legislation for acquisition of Chief’s rights called the Manipur Hill Areas (Acquisition of the Chief’s rights) Act, 1967 was enacted but it has not yet been implemented. The conclusion that can be arrived at from the above, is that a Chief is the owner of the land of the village; inheritance follows the male line and no female has any right to claim property. The custom of the Kukis that the Chief is the owner of the land of the entire village and that the office of the Chief is a hereditary one, has been upheld by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Ningom Vs. Samjamang reported in (1990) 2 GLR 331 relied upon the by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 8. On perusal of the averments made in the writ petition and affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, it is seen that clear-cut facts have not emerged so far which ran through the various cases and the earlier orders of the learned civil courts as well as the Hon’ble High Court appear to have been passed on the basis of the averments made in the respective application or the petition or the memo of appeal as the case may be. They have not given any finding on facts which can be said to have remained undisputed amongst the parties and the issues relating to customary laws or the Chiefship involved therein and they had probably proceeded on the assumption as if there was no issue at all as regards the Chiefship. They have not given any finding on facts which can be said to have remained undisputed amongst the parties and the issues relating to customary laws or the Chiefship involved therein and they had probably proceeded on the assumption as if there was no issue at all as regards the Chiefship. The facts which are borne out from the materials placed on record and are not disputed amongst the parties, are that Shri Langjachin was the founder and Chief of Behiang Village and while he was the Chief, Shri Paodamang Ngaite along with some of his followers came to the Behiang Village and started settling there either with the permission of Shri Langjachin or on the basis of an agreement by which Shri Langjachin had sold the land of the Behiang Village to him with Chiefship. Many cases came up before the civil courts as well as the Hon’ble High Court on several occasions on various issues but none of the said issues was as regards the Chiefship and one of such cases being the C.C. Hill Civil Revision No. 4 of 1953 which was allowed on 06-04-1953. Admittedly, somehow and in course of time, the Behiang Village came to be known in two names as Behiang Village (Langjachin) and Behiang Village (T) and this position appears to have continued for a long time and ultimately, when the Manipur State Hill Peoples (Administration) Regulation, 1947 was enacted, these two villages were given statutory recognition, for the first time, with their Chiefs being shown as Shri Jamkhogin and Shri Tuanthong Ngaite respectively. There is no material on record to show the validity of the said Manipur State Hill Peoples (Administration) Regulations, 1947 being challenged by anyone before an appropriate court and the fact that it was not challenged at all, had shown that nobody in the said villages had any objection thereto. After India attained independence, the Manipur (Village Authority in Hill Areas) Act, 1956 came to be enacted by the Parliament, Section 3 of which provides that there shall be a Village Authority for every village having twenty or more tax-paying houses and that where there is a Chief or Khullakpa in a village, he shall be the ex-officio Chairman and where there is no such Chief or Khullakpa, the Chairman of the Village Authority shall be elected by the members of the Village Authority from among themselves. After this Act being enacted by the Parliament, Village Authorities might have been constituted by the State Government in these two villages with their respective Chiefs being the ex-officio Chairmen but the details thereof are not forthcoming except the Government order dated 01-07-2008 by which approval was accorded to the declaration of the elected persons as Chairman and members of the Village Authorities in the hill areas of Churachandpur District showing Shri Paodamang Ngaite as the Chief/Chairman of the Behiang Village. Few years later from the said Act, 1956 being enacted, came the declaratory suit being Title Suit No. 26 of 1965 to be filed by Shri Tongjapao and others which was decided ex-parte on 21-07-1969. The learned counsel appearing for the private respondent and the learned Addl. Advocate General have submitted that the said judgment is per in curium and is contrary to the customary laws and practices. Their contentions seem to have some considerable force for the reason that as per the customary laws as narrated herein above, a Chief is the owner of the land of the village. The description of the suit land appears to have covered the whole village and therefore, the judgment appears to be contrary to the customary laws. Moreover, the list of persons, shown in the Annexure-I, on whose behalf the suit was instituted, includes the names of some Nepali residing in the suit land. The question arises is as to whether the suit was maintainable or not at the instance of the Nepali who do not belong to the Kuki tribes. This aspect appears to have not been considered by the learned Judge at all. While decreeing the suit, the learned Judge had completely ignored the earlier order dated 06-04-1953 passed in favour of the ancestors of the private respondent to the effect that Shri Tuanthong Nagite was the Chief of the Behiang Village. This aspect appears to have not been considered by the learned Judge at all. While decreeing the suit, the learned Judge had completely ignored the earlier order dated 06-04-1953 passed in favour of the ancestors of the private respondent to the effect that Shri Tuanthong Nagite was the Chief of the Behiang Village. The State Government also has taken a firm stand that the said judgment is not binding on them for the reason that it was not a party nor was any issue relating to the power of the State Government under Section 3 of the Manipur (Village Authority in Hill Areas) Act, 1956 decided by the learned Judge and that the learned judge has not considered the provisions of the Manipur State Hill Peoples (Administration) Regulations, 1947 whereby only two villages namely Behiang Village and Behiang Village (Langjachin) have been statutorily recognised. Although the legality and correctness of the judgment dated 21-07-1969 is not the subject matter in issue before this court, the aforesaid circumstances have indubitably shown that the said judgment is per in curium. 9. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned order, has questioned and challenged it on the ground that while issuing the impugned order, the State Government has shown no respect to the earlier orders passed by the Civil courts as well as that of the Hon’ble High Court. By this impugned order which is a detailed and speaking order, the State Government has restored its earlier orders dated 12-02-2004 and 05-12-2006 in the interest of hill people while revoking its order dated 25-09-2008. On perusal of the Government order dated 12-02-2004, it is seen that it is nothing but an order declaring that various orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur recognising machet villages belonging to Behiang Village (T) shall be deemed cancelled on the ground that no approval was obtained from the State Government which is the only authority to issue such order under the provisions of Section 3 of the Manipur (Village Authorities in Hill Areas) Act, 1956. Before issuing the order dated 12-02-2004, the Administrative Department had duly consulted the Law Department which gave its views, on the basis of which the impugned order was issued by the Administrative Department. The other Government order dated 05-12-2006 was issued rejecting the representation dated 10-05-2004 submitted by the petitioner, Ms. Before issuing the order dated 12-02-2004, the Administrative Department had duly consulted the Law Department which gave its views, on the basis of which the impugned order was issued by the Administrative Department. The other Government order dated 05-12-2006 was issued rejecting the representation dated 10-05-2004 submitted by the petitioner, Ms. Jubilee Moi to the Commissioner (Hills), Government of Manipur contending that the cancellation of machet villages was illegal because the said machet villages were established in the Behiang Village (Langjachin). The conjoint reading of these orders dated 12-02-2004, 05-12-2006 and the impugned order makes it very clear that the subject matter in issue, arising out of them, is as regards the power of the State Government in recognising a village. In other words, the subject matter in issue has nothing to do with the judgment dated 21-07-1969 passed by the Second Subordinate Judge, Manipur. Under the provisions of Section 3 of the Manipur (Village Authorities in Hill areas) Act, 1956, it is the State Government and not the Deputy Commissioner, which is competent to recognise a village after the same having fulfilled all the requirements mentioned therein. Admittedly, the said judgment dated 21-07-1968 has been passed in a suit for declaration without touching upon the issue relating to the exercise of the said power by the State Government. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not acceptable to this court. Moreover, the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and hence, the same are not referred to herein. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and after perusal of the materials on record, this court is of the view that there is no merit at all in the instant writ petition and is accordingly liable to be dismissed. 10. While deciding the issue involved herein, one aspect which the people in the hill areas may keep in mind, has arisen as regards the customary laws prevailing in the hill areas. Customary laws means a set of rules or norms practiced in a community for a long time. With the passage of time, customary laws have undergone radical changes, as a result the question, commonly and generally asked in the public, is as to what actually the customary laws are. Customary laws means a set of rules or norms practiced in a community for a long time. With the passage of time, customary laws have undergone radical changes, as a result the question, commonly and generally asked in the public, is as to what actually the customary laws are. Many people in the hill areas have, these days, started approaching the civil courts or this Court to redress their grievances in respect of various issues arising out of customary laws and some of which, mention may be made, are (a) who is the Chief of a recognised village because the Chief is the ex-officio Chairman of the Village Authority. Various orders/notifications issued by the State Government declaring the result of the election of the members of the Village Authority showing therewith the name of the Chairman of the Village Authority have become the subject matters in issue in some cases; (b) who is the owner of the land of the village? This issue has arisen in many cases where the lands are acquired by the Government for undertaking development projects and compensation to be paid for it. There seems to be no definite clarity with respect to the ownership of the land of the village. On the one hand, a Chief is said to be the only owner of the land of the village and if that be so, the question of inheritance may arise only in the family of the Chief. But the said reports of the Law Research Institute talk about the custom whereby inheritance in respect of land takes place in every family of the Kuki tribes; (c) what are the documents to be produced by the people in the hill areas to prove the ownership or the title over the land? This issue has arisen in some cases where the documents of ownership of the land are required to be mortgaged for a loan being granted by the bank in respect of some social development schemes launched by the Government of India. The above issue (a) and (b) are inter-related and are relevant from the point of view of the decision rendered on 12-05-2014 by the Division Bench of this court in Writ Appeal Nos. 59 of 2011, Union of India Vs. S. Shangreikhai and Writ Appeal No. 42 of 2013, State of Manipur Vs. The above issue (a) and (b) are inter-related and are relevant from the point of view of the decision rendered on 12-05-2014 by the Division Bench of this court in Writ Appeal Nos. 59 of 2011, Union of India Vs. S. Shangreikhai and Writ Appeal No. 42 of 2013, State of Manipur Vs. S. Shangreikhai wherein the issue regarding payment of compensation on account of water being diverted by the Assam Rifles affecting irrigation in private fields arose, when the Hon’ble Court held that since none of the private respondents was able to produce any document in proof of title, compensation could not be paid to them so long as they did not prove title over the lands under their possessions. This ruling has been followed in a subsequent case namely K. Peter & anr. Vs. State of Manipur & ors., reported in (2015) 1 NEJ 255 wherein this court has again held that since the petitioners have failed to establish their title over the land in issue, no writ can be issued for directing the respondents to pay compensation to them. These issues are illustrative and not exhaustive. One of the reasons as to why such issues have arisen in recent times, appears to be that there is no land law applicable in the hill areas and in the absence of such a land law, hill areas are not surveyed; owners are not identified and recorded in the revenue record; pattas are not issued in favour of the owners of the land and therefore, litigations are bound to occur, the number of which will increase day by day. India is a democratic country where the people are considered to be supreme and therefore, the Government is run by its representatives; the money held by the Government is considered to be the public money and the employees of the Government are considered to be public servants. People of India have given to themselves a Constitution with a view to secure to all its citizens, justice, liberty and equality. Even after 65 years of independence, we have not been able to achieve fully the objectives specified in the preamble of the Constitution despite a number of development projects/schemes being undertaken continuously by the Government. People of India have given to themselves a Constitution with a view to secure to all its citizens, justice, liberty and equality. Even after 65 years of independence, we have not been able to achieve fully the objectives specified in the preamble of the Constitution despite a number of development projects/schemes being undertaken continuously by the Government. It appears to be felt in some circle of the Government of India that having a land law in the hill areas may be a need of the hour and may enhance the process of development towards achieving justice, liberty and equality and in particular, economic equality. Therefore, this court is of the sincere and bonafide view that it is high time for the people in the hill areas to think of having a land law applicable in the hill areas so as to avoid unnecessary and unwarranted litigations from the unscrupulous litigants. 11. For the reasons stated herein above, the instant writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.