Cites historical land records, token tax orders and Angami customary law, while reaffirming banishment of key Maova Village leaders
The Chakhroma Public Organisation (CPO), in a detailed representation submitted to the Chief Secretary of Nagaland, has laid out an extensive account of what it describes as the historical, customary, legal and administrative dimensions of the ongoing Maova Village dispute, arguing that the present crisis is rooted not merely in recent violence but in decades of unresolved land, governance and customary rights issues.
Signed by CPO President Zhato Kimho and Vice President Sebastian Zumyu, the representation asserts that the organisation has, for several years, received repeated complaints from landowners alleging that the Maova Village Council had restricted property owners from developing their land and had engaged in intimidation despite administrative intervention.
According to the CPO, even the Administration had earlier directed the Maova Village Council not to obstruct property owners from developing their estates “as they deemed fit,” but the organisation alleged that such directives were repeatedly ignored.
The CPO stated that after receiving written complaints in 2025 from two landowners alleging that illegal structures were being erected on their land, it served a notice to the Maova Village Council on December 2, 2025, directing it to refrain from such acts and remove the structures by December 25, 2025.
The representation stated that despite the deadline, “no official intimation was received” from the village council.
The organisation further detailed the events of February 13, 2026, when CPO leaders and volunteers reportedly visited Maova Village for discussions with village leaders.
According to the representation, the delegation was met with hostility.
“They greeted the negotiating party with stones and batons,” the CPO stated, further alleging that its President “was pushed around” and had to be pulled to safety by volunteers.
The representation claimed that the confrontation escalated into a scuffle in which the EAC Medziphema and one police personnel were injured, while some properties were also damaged.
At the core of the CPO’s argument is its assertion that the dispute is fundamentally tied to Angami customary law and historical land arrangements.
The organisation stated that Kuki villages within Chakhroma jurisdiction were originally permitted settlement under Angami customary practices, which, according to the representation, require payment of a nominal token tax in recognition of traditional landownership.
Citing what it called “historical records and signed agreements,” the CPO claimed that Maova Village was granted settlement in 1933 as a tenant village under the customary ownership of Punglwa.
It further stated that this ownership was later transferred to Tsüima Village through a traditional oath-taking on April 26, 1975.
The representation described token tax as a “non-negotiable” customary recognition mechanism and alleged that while other Kuki villages under Chakhroma jurisdiction continue to honour the practice, Maova Village has “consistently refused to comply.”
The CPO also referenced multiple legal and administrative decisions to support its position.
These include: A March 3, 1981 judgment by then ADC Peren S. Lima Aier; and An April 19, 2010 order by then DC Dimapur Maong Aier directing Maova Village to pay Rs 5 annually to Tsüima Village as token tax.
According to the CPO, Maova’s refusal to comply with these directives represents both customary and administrative defiance.
The representation further cited a meeting held on August 27, 2024, involving the CPO, its frontal organisations, Maova Village Council members, village leaders and church leaders.
According to the CPO, during that meeting, then Council Chairman Paoboi Changsang and Village Secretary Sutminlal reportedly acknowledged that they were living under Chakhroma Angami jurisdiction and had expressed willingness to pay token tax to the CPO.
However, the CPO said no final resolution followed.
Another major point raised in the representation concerns a June 2, 2018 Maova Village Council resolution which allegedly restricted landowners from developing their own property.
The CPO argued that this was beyond the council’s legal and customary jurisdiction and directly contradicted the Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act, 1978.
The representation cited a November 24, 2021 DB Court judgment stating that the Maova Village Council “shall not block/bring any obstacles for settlement of any person/people.”
However, the CPO alleged that despite the court’s ruling, the restrictions effectively continued until after the February 13, 2026 incident.
In one of its strongest assertions, the CPO argued that the current crisis is “a direct consequence of the Government’s failure to enforce its own administrative orders/decrees.”
While acknowledging the deployment of security forces, the organisation maintained that the issue should not be viewed solely as a law-and-order matter but as one involving alleged violations of Angami customary law and established legal orders.
“Had the District Administration intervened to check these illegal assertions earlier, the escalation on February 13, 2026 could have been entirely avoided,” the representation stated.
The CPO said it has sought discussions with Maova Village leaders on multiple occasions after the February 13 incident, but claimed those efforts did not produce resolution.
The CPO reaffirmed its support for the customary banishment order issued by the Chakhroma Youth Organisation (CYO).
The organisation stated that, in order to preserve what it described as the integrity of Chakhroma customary practices, both the CPO and CYO remain firm on the banishment order against: Sutminlal Haiphei, Chairman; Seiboi Changsang, Head GB, and Paoboi Changsang, Ex-Chairman.
The representation argued that these actions were taken in accordance with Angami customary law and maintained that traditional authority over ancestral land must not be undermined.
“We cannot allow a situation where a tenant village uses state machinery to overthrow the traditional authority of the landowner,” the representation stated.
The CPO also strongly criticized the Government, stating that the current crisis is “a direct consequence of the Government’s failure to enforce its own administrative orders/decrees.”
It argued that the dispute has been treated largely as a law-and-order issue, whereas the organisation maintains it is fundamentally rooted in customary law violations, unresolved land rights and administrative inaction.
The CPO urged the State Government to: Ensure Maova Village adheres to historical orders and token tax obligations; Review the status of the Maova Village Council for alleged repeated violations of the Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act; and Ensure State protection does not suppress indigenous customary rights.
The representation was accompanied by multiple documents, including: DB Court Judgment (November 24, 2021); Minutes of meetings with Maova leaders; 1996 appeal letters; Reaffirmation of the July 31, 1995 declaration; S.A. House listing of Maova Village; and Settlement records on the Tsüima–Punglwa boundary dispute.
The Maova Village Council’s response to the allegations and the reaffirmed banishment stand was not immediately available at the time of filing this report.
