JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. R. Iralu, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. L. Iralu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.Zho, learned counsel for the sole respondent. 2. This is a civil revision petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 32 of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, 1937 (Rules of 1937) for setting aside the verbal decision of the Gaonburas (GBs) of Chiechama Village Council dated 26.02.2017, decision of the Judicial Board dated 30.04.2017 (Annexure-A2), the decision of the Village Council dated 17.09.2017 (Annexure-C 1) and the judgment and order of the PA to Deputy Commissioner dated 03.05.2018 (Annexure-J). 3. The facts of the case in brief is that a complaint was instituted by the respondent before the GBs of Chiechama village complaining that the petitioner was tapping/drawing water for drinking purpose from over/above the respondents irrigation canal which was against the customary practice of Chiechama village. The GBs acting upon the complaint gave an oral verdict on 26.02.2017 permitting the petitioner to draw/tap water from the stream facing towards 'Zerhie'. The said decision was given by the head GB along with 6 others serving GBs of Chiechama village. They also observed that any persons aggrieved with the decision may approach the Judicial Board, Chiechama village within 5 days. 4. The petitioner not being satisfied with the verdict approached the Judicial Board of Chiechama village constituted by the Chiechama Village Council (Village Council) for deciding the dispute within the jurisdiction of the village. The parties were served with 2 summons dated 01.04.2017 and 07.04.2017. On the date of the summon, the Judicial Board went to the disputed site and heard both the parties. Consequently, the Judicial Board made its decision on 30.04.2017 allowing the petitioner to tap the water with half inch pipe for drinking purpose and that when there is shortage of water faced by the respondent at any point of time, the petitioner should give water to the respondent. 5. Thereafter, the respondent being aggrieved with the decision of the Judicial Board of the Village Council preferred another complaint before the Chairman of the Village Council. On receiving the complaint, the Chairman and Secretary of the Village Council wrote to the petitioner vide letter dated 18.08.2017 requiring him to submit his statement before the Village Council. 5. Thereafter, the respondent being aggrieved with the decision of the Judicial Board of the Village Council preferred another complaint before the Chairman of the Village Council. On receiving the complaint, the Chairman and Secretary of the Village Council wrote to the petitioner vide letter dated 18.08.2017 requiring him to submit his statement before the Village Council. In response, the petitioner by his letter dated 19.08.2017 wrote to the Secretary stating that since the Judicial Board had already decided the matter, there is no reason for him to submit his statement. Thereafter, the Chairman and Secretary of the Village Council by an order dated 17.09.2017 passed an order reiterating the customary practice that no one shall be allowed to draw/tap water from over and above someones irrigation canal. As per the order, the decision was made on 10.09.2017 showing a list of those members who had attended the meeting. The Judicial Board however, issued a statement on 28.09.2017 refuting the order dated 17.09.2017 issued by the Chairman and Secretary of the Village Council that the list dated 10.09.2017 of those who attended was only a result of an emergency meeting called by the Chairman and Secretary on that day and the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent was only brought up at the end of the meeting as an ancillary matter. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner being aggrieved with the decision of the Village Council dated 17.09.2017 preferred an appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (ADC) Chiephobozou by his letter dated 30.01.2018. The ADC then endorsed the matter to the PA to DC on the same day. In the meantime, the Chairman and Secretary of the Village Council vide letter dated 05.02.2018 informed the petitioner that if he does not remove the pipe used by him to draw water before 28.02.2018, he would be penalized as per the tradition followed by the village. The pipe of the petitioner was thereafter disconnected by the Village Council. Consequently, the PA to DC passed the judgment and order dated 03.05.2018 directing the petitioner not to tap water from above someones source of water because of the prevailing tradition which prohibits digging of irrigation canal or tapping of water from above someones source of water. The petitioner was however allowed to tap/draw the water from below the source of water. The petitioner was however allowed to tap/draw the water from below the source of water. The petitioner however being aggrieved with the said decision has preferred the instant revision petition before this Court. 7. Mr. R. Iralu, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Rule 23 of 1937 Rules (as amended), the administration of civil justice in the State of Nagaland is entrusted to the DC/ADC/Assistant to DC and customary Court constituted under chapter IV A of the Rules. The DBs and other village authority may be appointed by the State Government from time to time by a notification in the Official Gazette. He therefore, submits that unless the GBs are appointed by the State Government and their appointment notified in the official Gazette, the GBs do not have the power to administer civil justice. He further submits that the verbal decision of the GBs dated 26.02.2017 cannot be sustained. 8. The learned senior counsel submits that even though the Judicial Board and the Village Council entertained the complaint made by the parties, the fact remains that the Judicial Board is comprised of members which include Village Council members, head GBs who is also the ex-officio Village Council member and the Chairman of the Village Council. Therefore, the decision rendered by the Judicial Board as well as Village Council by orders dated 30.04.2017 and 17.09.2017 respectively also cannot be sustained. The learned senior counsel further submits that although the petitioner approached the ADC, the ADC referred the matter to the PA to DC. Under the Rules of 1937, PA to DC has not been empowered to decide cases but it is the DBs to decide cases on being appointed by the State Government. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the PA to DC dated 03.05.2018 being without jurisdiction, the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 9. The learned senior counsel submits that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has the power of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. Therefore, this Court has the power to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Courts below in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction. The learned senior counsel submits that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has the power of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. Therefore, this Court has the power to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Courts below in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction. In support of his submission, the learned senior counsel has relied upon the following decisions:- (i) Achutananda Baidya vs. Prafulla Kumar Gayen & Ors., reported in (1997) 5 SCC 76 . (ii) Hasham Abbas Sayyad vs Usman Abbas Sayyad and Others reported in (2007) 2 SCC 355 paragraph 22-23 (iii) Chief Engineer, Hydel Project and Others vs Ravinder Nath and Others (2008) 2 SCC 350 . 10. Mr. A. Zho, learned counsel for the sole respondent on the other hand submits that the respondent has been utilizing the water for cultivation and fisheries since the time of his forefather which dates back to about 100 years. He submits that sometime in the year 2008-09, the petitioner started tapping water from the water source but when the respondent objected to it, the petitioner discontinue to do so. However, in the month of January 2017, the petitioner started tapping water from the water source from which the respondent was drawing water for irrigation. The respondent therefore, approached the GBs of Chiechama village with his grievance complaining that the conduct of the petitioner was against the traditional practice of Chiechama village. The learned counsel submits that except for the concession granted by the Judicial Board, the decision taken by the GBs up to the order passed by the PA to DC clearly upheld the traditional practice i.e., no one can tap water over and above the irrigation canal of another person who is already been drawing water. It is therefore, clear that the petitioner does not have any case. 11. Mr. A. Zho, learned counsel by referring to Rule 24 of the Rules of 1937 submits that apart from the other authorities mentioned therein, the GBs are empowered to try cases without limit between the parties who are residing within their jurisdiction. The GBs are empowered to decide suits in open Durbar in the presence of the parties and in the presence of at least 3 respectable witnesses. The GBs are empowered to decide suits in open Durbar in the presence of the parties and in the presence of at least 3 respectable witnesses. Therefore, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is clearly mistaken to submit that the GBs do not have the jurisdiction or authority to try civil cases. The learned counsel also submits that besides the Judicial Board, all the other forums have clearly decided the case in favour of the respondent in view of the prevailing traditional practice. Mr. A. Zho, learned counsel further submits that the contention of the petitioner that the GBs, the Judicial Board, the Village Council and PA to DC have no jurisdiction to try dispute including the present controversy cannot be sustained at this belated stage since the petitioner without any objection whatsoever has been participating in the various forums which adjudicated the controversy between the petitioner and the respondent. Therefore, it is too late in a day to make such objection and in support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the following authorities:- (i) Sneh Lata Goel vs Pushplata and Others reported in (2019) 3 SCC. (ii) Subhash Mahadevasa Habib vs Nemasa Ambasa Dharmadas reported in (2007) 13 SCC. (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax and Others vs Chhabil Das Agarwal reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603 . (iv) Union of India and Others vs Major General Shri Kant Sharma reported in (2015) 6 SCC 773 . (v) Kiran Singh and Others vs Chaman Paswan and Others reported in AIR 1954 SC 340 . 12. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the materials available on record including the authorities that has been relied upon. 13. As may be seen from the above narration, the facts of the case are broadly not disputed. The respondent claims to have been drawing water from the water source since the days of his forefathers while the petitioner wants to tap water from the same source. Therefore, the issue to be decided is as to whether the GBs, the Judicial Board, the Village Council and PA to DC have jurisdiction to try cases such as the present controversy between the parties. It may be noticed that Rule 23 and 24 of the Rules of 1937 (unamended) provides as follows:- '23. Therefore, the issue to be decided is as to whether the GBs, the Judicial Board, the Village Council and PA to DC have jurisdiction to try cases such as the present controversy between the parties. It may be noticed that Rule 23 and 24 of the Rules of 1937 (unamended) provides as follows:- '23. The Administration of civil justice in the Naga Hills is entrusted to the Deputy Commissioner, his Assistants, (such tribal courts as may be constituted according to rules to be made by the Governor of Assam) and the mauzadars, gaonburas, chiefs, headmen of khels, and other chief village authorities. 24. Mauzadars, gaonburas, chiefs, headmen of Khels or other village authorities sitting with the village elders in council are empowered to try cases without limit as to amount, but with the following reservations:- (a) They may not try suits in which a native of the plains or native of another village not resident in their jurisdiction is a party. (b) All suits be decided in open Darbar, in the presence of the parties and at least three respectable witnesses.' 14. From the above abstract, it may be seen that the administration of civil justice in the Naga Hills is entrusted to the DC, his assistant including the Mauzadars and GBs apart from others. They are empowered to try cases without limit as to the amount subject to the dispute between parties residing within their jurisdiction. However, by way of the amendment i.e. the Nagaland Act No.1 of 1987, Rule 23 and 24 has been amended. Rule 23 and 24 (amended) may be abstracted as follows:- '23. The Administration of Civil Justice in the State of Nagaland is entrusted to the Deputy Commissioner, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Customary Courts constituted under Chapter IV A of the Rules, Dobasis and other village authority may be appointed by the State Government from time to time by Notification in the Official Gazette. Provided that the Government of Nagaland shall be empowered to invest any officer of the State Government having judicial experience with the powers of the Deputy Commissioner for the trial of any particular civil case or cases and the Officer so invested with the powers of the Deputy Commissioners shall be designated as Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) and shall exercise all the powers of the Deputy Commissioner in the behalf. 24. 24. Mauzadars, gaonburas, chiefs, headmen of Khels, Dobhasis or other village authorities sitting with the village elders in council are empowered to try cases without limit as to the amount, but with the following reservations:- (a) They may not try suits in which a native of the plains or native of another village not resident in their jurisdiction is a party. (b) All suits be decided in open Darbar, in the presence of the parties and at least three respectable witnesses.' 15. From the above abstract, it may be seen that Rule 23 apart from mentioning that the State Government may appoint DBs and other village authorities from time to time by notification in the official Gazette, the GBs, Mauzadars, Chiefs etc have not been mentioned. Rule 24 however mentions that Mauzadars, GBs, Chiefs etc are empowered to try cases without limit as to the amount subject to the parties not being a native of the plains and residing within the jurisdiction. In so far as the DEBs are concerned, Section 23 A which was inserted by the Nagaland Amendment Act of 1983, provides that they can try and decide civil cases only when the same are referred to them by the DC or his assistants. 16. Coming to the present case, as may be noticed, the complaint submitted by the respondent before the GBs was decided by them on 26.02.2017 as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent. It was not the case of the petitioner that he approached the Judicial Board, the Village Council or PA to DC that the decision made by GBs was without any jurisdiction. Although the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the GBs are competent to try case only if they are appointed by the State Government by way of Notification in the official Gazette but the fact remains that neither of the parties have raised this issue during the entire proceeding before the forums below. It may further be noticed that the unamended Rule 23 and 24 of the Rules of 1937 clearly provided for the administration of civil justice to be tried by the GBs amongst others. It may further be noticed that the unamended Rule 23 and 24 of the Rules of 1937 clearly provided for the administration of civil justice to be tried by the GBs amongst others. Therefore, in the absence of any such restrictions in specific terms and also in absence of any objection raised by the parties at the very initial stage, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be allowed to question the jurisdiction of the GBs in considering the complaint of the respondent. Having come to such a finding, I find it necessary to dwell upon the authorities referred to by the learned counsels for the parties. 17. Rule 31 of the Rules of 1937 provides that an appeal shall lie from the decision of the GBs, DBs etc amongst others to the DC or his assistant. As already noticed herein above, Rule 23 A of the same Rules empowers the DBs to try cases if the same is referred to them by the DC or his assistant. Therefore, it appears to be no such provisions by which the PA to DC is empowered to try cases under the Rules of 1937. Therefore, the impugned order dated 03.05.2018 passed by the PA to DC in my considered view cannot be sustained. In so far as the Judicial Board and the Village Council decisions are concerned, since the Judicial Board itself comprised of Village Council members and head GB, the impugned decisions referred by them on 30.04.2017 and 17.09.2017 respectively also cannot be sustained. 18. In the result, upon considering the entire aspect of the matter, the decision of the GB dated 26.02.2017 is upheld and the parties aggrieved may approached competent authority as provided under Rule 31 of the Rules of 1937. But for the order dated 26.02.2017 of the GBs, all the other decisions impugned in the revision petition are hereby set aside.