Kohima Bar Association seeks Nagaland Govt’s action against land-related charges by village councils

•    Seeks declaration that 1978 Act bars VC’s pattas, compulsory renewals and related charges•    Proposes uniform rules under 1978 ActKohima, October 15 (MExN): The Kohima Bar Association (KBA) has sought immediate Nagaland government intervention against what it termed the “unauthorised levy and collection of land-related charges” by certain Village Councils, contending that the practices exceed powers conferred under the Nagaland Village and Tribal Councils Act, 1978.In a representation to the Chief Secretary dated October 15, the Association flagged an increasing trend of Village Councils issuing documents termed “land pattas”, compelling periodic renewals and collecting transfer fees, patta fees and other compulsory land-related charges.The KBA maintained that the 1978 Act does not authorise Village Councils to establish a parallel land-documentation system, create proprietary rights or impose compulsory charges relating to the transfer or ownership of immovable property.“Unless the matter is examined and regulated at this stage, there exists a real possibility that such practices will gradually become institutionalized throughout the State without any legislative sanction,” the Association stated.The representation seeks four interventions: a declaration on the legality of Village Council pattas and related charges, discontinuation of such collections, uniform rules for limited statutory services and directions to ensure certainty in land administration.KBA cites limits under 1978 ActThe Association argued that Village Councils, like other statutory authorities, can exercise only powers expressly conferred by law.It cited Section 15(1)(g), which requires transfers of immovable property to receive Village Council consent and the council to maintain written records of such transfers.“The statutory function is therefore clear, namely, to accord consent; and to maintain records. The Act goes no further,” the KBA stated.The Association contended that these functions do not confer the power to establish a separate land-documentation system, impose renewal requirements or collect compulsory fees.It also questioned the use of the term “patta”, arguing that the Act contains no statutory concept of a Village Council patta.“In Indian land administration, a patta ordinarily denotes a grant, lease, settlement, allotment or recognition issued by an authority possessing proprietary authority over the land,” the Association stated.“The continued use of such expression by the Village Councils, in the absence of statutory authority, makes a mockery of the Act of 1978,” it added.The KBA maintained that a Village Council exercising its function under Section 15(1)(g) grants no title, but is limited to according consent and maintaining written records of transfers.Four demands for government interventionThe KBA has urged the State government to formally declare that the 1978 Act does not authorise Village Councils to establish a system of Village Council pattas, require compulsory renewals or impose related monetary charges. It argued that the Act does not provide for such a system or empower councils to establish a parallel land-revenue or registration mechanism.It has also sought a declaration that transfer fees, patta fees, renewal fees and similar compulsory charges are unsupported by the Act, and called for their immediate discontinuation. The Association argued that the power to consent to a transfer does not extend to imposing compulsory financial liabilities on citizens.As a third measure, the KBA proposed framing rules under the Act to prescribe a uniform and reasonable fee, if considered necessary, for the limited statutory functions of according consent to property transfers and maintaining written records under Section 15(1)(g). Such rules, it said, would prevent individual councils from imposing varying and unauthorised charges.Acknowledging the financial constraints faced by Village Councils, the Association suggested government budgetary support or grants-in-aid, rather than unauthorised collections from citizens, to meet any additional financial requirements.Finally, it sought further government directions to ensure “uniformity, legality and certainty in land administration throughout the State”, arguing that practices unsupported by law could become institutionalised through repeated use.Cautions against institutionalisation of unauthorised practicesThe Association said the practices had been observed over several years and now required executive intervention.“The issue is not whether Village Councils should continue to discharge their statutory and customary functions. The issue is whether powers which the Act has never conferred to the Village Councils may gradually become institutionalised through repeated practice that it becomes difficult to control,” the representation stated.It further argued that the government could not remain a “silent spectator” while statutory authorities assumed powers that could not be traced to the Act.The KBA also expressed concern over the financial burden on citizens, stating that statutory authorities should not impose monetary obligations without express legal authority.“In a State where citizens are already subjected to numerous financial demands from various quarters, the least that can be expected from the Government is that statutory authorities functioning under laws enacted by the State impose no monetary burden except with express authority of law,” it stated.The Association urged the government to consider the representation urgently and prevent the further proliferation of practices it considers unsupported by law.