JUDGMENT & ORDER : YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. Zhimomi, Mr. Moa Imchen, learned Senior Government Advocate for the State respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. A. Zho, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 (R-5). 2. It is the case of the petitioner that Thetsumi Village and Chizami Village are neighboring villages in the Phek District of Nagaland. They are frequently engaged in boundary disputes. The petitioner is the Thetsumi Village Council. In connection with the dispute between the two villages several orders have been passed by the Administrative Officers of the District from 1915 to 1933. It is stated that amongst the various orders passed from time to time the order dated 19.04.1921 passed in Pol. Case12 of 1921 remains till date without any modification or cancellation. 3. It is contended by the petitioner that the dispute is still unresolved and that R-5 has repeatedly violated the Order dated 19.04.1921 in Pol. Case12 of 1921. It is further stated that apart from the demarcated boundary, because of familial relationships some persons/families from Chizami Village were permitted to cultivate lands within ‘Plot B’ of the petitioner Village. However, the permission granted to them to cultivate on the Thetsumi side cannot be translated into any change in the demarcated boundary/ownership. 4. Because of continuous attempts at encroachment to wrest the lands of Thetsumi Village, the petitioner Village had filed Civil Suit No. 17(3)/88 in the Court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (J) Phek which was later transferred to the court of District Judge Kohima. During the pendency of Civil Suit No. 17(3)/88 several attempts were made to amicably settle the dispute between the two villages. It is the petitioner’s submission that, the Chizami Village continued its attempts to encroach into the lands of Thetsumi Village. Orders were passed by the District Administration in relation to these disputes. In this regard, Order No. JDL/MISC-10/05 dated 31.05.2019 was issued directing the disputing parties not to hinder or stop either side from cultivation ‘if the same was being done earlier through traditional arrangements’. Taking note of the altercations between the two villages, by Order No. JDL/POL-4/78/401 dated 13.06.2022, the Deputy Commissioner, Phek directed both the parties to maintain status quo. 5. That after the status quo Order was issued, the R-5 again attempted to intrude into the land of petitioner Village. Taking note of the altercations between the two villages, by Order No. JDL/POL-4/78/401 dated 13.06.2022, the Deputy Commissioner, Phek directed both the parties to maintain status quo. 5. That after the status quo Order was issued, the R-5 again attempted to intrude into the land of petitioner Village. As such, the petitioner Village prevented them from doing so. At this juncture, the Chizami Village/R-5 approached the Additional Deputy Commissioner (ADC), Pfutsero and the petitioner received a summons dated 08.07.2022 requiring the petitioner’s attendance on 11.07.2022 before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pfutsero. On 11.07.2022, the ADC, Pfutsero and the SDO (Civil) Chizami concluded the meeting by warning the petitioner to cooperate with the Government or face sanctions. Subsequently, without any notice to the petitioner Village and in blatant violation of the procedures prescribed by law, the impugned Order No.ADC/PFRO/JUD-18/2020-21/215 dated 15.07.2022 was issued imposing a compensation amount of Rs. 12,25,050/- to be paid by the petitioner Village to Chizami Village/R-5 within 15 days from the date of its issue. The impugned Order also stated that failure to comply within the stipulated time ‘will lead to withholding of all Government Development funds indefinitely’. 6. Against this Order dated 15.07.2022, the petitioner had filed WP(C)/154/2022. By an Interim Order dated 28.07.2022, this Court had stayed the Order of the ADC, Pfutsero dated 15.07.2022. 7. At this juncture, it came to light that the Chizami Village/R-5 had filed a complaint dated 27.07.2022 before the Deputy Commissioner (DC), Phek. Thereafter the DC, Phek endorsed the said complaint to the District Head Dobashi, Phek. The District Head Dobashi constituted a team of Dobashis as “District Customary Court” to inquire into the complaint filed by the Chizami Village Council and submitted the names of the said team to the DC, Phek for approval. In pursuance to this a summons dated 17.08.2022 was issued to the petitioner. 8. The petitioner received the summons dated 17.08.2022 in connection with MISC/Civil/Case No. 101/2022 issued by the District Customary Court, Phek summoning him to appear on 30.08.2022. The petitioner, therefore addressed a representation dated 27.08.2022 informing the authorities that the dispute is pending before the High Court; that the issue with regard to boundary is also pending before the civil court and, therefore, the District Customary Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the land dispute filed by the R-5 Village. The petitioner, therefore addressed a representation dated 27.08.2022 informing the authorities that the dispute is pending before the High Court; that the issue with regard to boundary is also pending before the civil court and, therefore, the District Customary Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the land dispute filed by the R-5 Village. However, on 24.09.2022, the petitioner received another summon dated 20.09.2022 issued by the ‘District Customary Court’ Phek requiring attendance on 11.10.2022. 9. The petitioner submits that the institution of the MISC/Civil/Case No. 101/2022 along with the Summons dated 17.08.2022 and 20.09.2022 issued by the ‘District Customary Court’ are ex-facie illegal. The creation of a District Customary Court is illegal and is a process unknown to the rule of law. It is therefore, submitted that the actions taken by the State respondents in summoning the petitioner Village is perverse and without jurisdiction. 10. The petitioner, has therefore prayed for quashing and setting aside of the (i) Letter dated 29.07.2022 issued by the DC, Phek endorsing the complaint by Chizami Village Council, (ii) the MISC/Civil/Case No. 101/2022, (iii) the summons dated 20.09.2022 and also prays for (iv) a direction to the parties in Civil Suit No. 17(3)/88 to reconstruct records pending before the Court of District Judge Kohima and proceed with the trial of the case. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the R-5, Mr. A. Zho and learned Senior Government Advocate, Mr. Moa Imchen appearing for the State respondent nos. 1 to 4 have not disputed the fact that the dispute between the parties is already agitated in Civil Suit No. 17(3)/88 which is pending before the District Judge, Kohima and fairly submit that the respondents have no objection to the prayers made by the petitioner. 12. In view of the fact that there is already a Civil Suit pending before the learned District Judge, Kohima where the dispute between the parties in this writ petition is being adjudicated, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders and summons which are challenged by the writ petitioner cannot stand the test of law and therefore the (i) Letter dated 29.07.2022 issued by the DC, Phek endorsing the complaint by Chizami Village Council, (ii) the MISC/Civil/Case No. 101/2022, and (iii) the summons dated 20.09.2022 are quashed and set aside. It may be mentioned that order No. ADC/PFRO/JUD-18/2020-21/215 dated 15.07.2022 issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pfutsero (ADC) has been already quashed and set aside in W.P(C)/154 of 2022. 13. The parties are at liberty to contest the Civil Suit No. 17(3)/88 before the District Judge, Kohima by reconstructing the records if necessary and proceed with the trial. 14. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.