Office of the

MAO COUNCIL
HQ: TADUBI, SENAPATI DISTRICT-794104, MANIPUR

Ref. No:

The position of the Mao Council on the verdict of the land dispute on Koziirii and Dziiko

The noble intervention of arbitration taken up by the TPO through its Board of Arbitrators is by no means
easy task. Spanning over almost 7 years, the stakeholders and the public have long awaited its logical
conclusion with high expectations. Unfortunately the manner in which the verdict was declared
unceremoniously and hastily after 7 long years under the shroud of the ban on the Mao people by SAPO and
the basis for the verdict given as “to accommodate each other” citing lack of “primary and documentary
evidence” and not on the merit of the case is contradictory to the facts already made available with the
TPO/BOA. All the contesting parties have submitted all relevant documents, narratives and evidences through
the position papers, the Rejoinders, Additional statements called for from the contesting parties and through
the several joint field visits organized by the TPO/BOA.

The Mao Council has not been handed the official copy of the verdict as of date. We came to know of the
rulings from the Media and the social media. Due to non-receipt of the official copy the Mao Council has not
been able to comment its position on the verdict thus far. Our silence may have led to assumptions that the
Mao Council has accepted the verdict. In order to clear the air, the Mao Council in its General Body meeting
held on 30th December, 2022 has noted the following observations on the text of the unsigned copy of the
verdict –

I) The unceremonious manner and situation in which the Verdict was declared on 19 th December, 2022.

a) The TPO did not accommodate the request of the Mao Council for holding the meeting at a neutral
venue. The TPO went ahead with the notified 19th December, 2022 joint meeting under the cloud of
SAPO’s ban
b) The verdict was declared in the absence of the contending parties and in the vitiated atmosphere of
SAPO’s direct defiance of the TPO’s notification for the 19 th December, 2022 Joint meeting of the
TPO Presidential Council and BOA.
c) The verdict was declared when the Mao people were under ban from travelling through SAPO area and
should have been deferred to a time when normalcy was restored. How can a verdict for resolution of a
dispute be declared when one of the party to the dispute is banned by another party.
d) Misspelling “Moa” on page 2 and page 25, whether it is typographical mistake or intentional is
certainly disrespectful of the Mao people. This indicates the carelessness, lack of seriousness and
insensitivity.
e) The fact that the official signed copy of the verdict has not been handed over to the Mao council
suggest that the TPO/BOA has relinquished the responsibility and minimum courtesy of ensuring the
receipt of the official verdict.

II. The 19/12/2022 verdict is beyond and outside the purview of the mandate that the TPO/BOA was
invested with.

The TPO/BOA verdict has ignored the very essence of the Arbitration Undertaking to resolve the dispute
based of Naga Customary Law and its Usages(Tenyimi). The corner stone on which the arbitration process
was established has been discarded and stating lack of “primary evidence”, “evidentiary documents”, non-
indication of total area of land claimed by the contestants at Koziirii/Kezoltsa/Kazing, “only based on oral
testimony”, ‘all the claimants not sure of the total area claimed” etc. Having done that, the BOA claims to
have applied their minds “ to restore peaceful co-existence and also by applying the principle of
accommodating each other amongst the Tenyimi tribes, it will be in the best interest all parties to declare the
disputed valley as common property”.
The merit of the case, be it in Tenyimi customary laws or natural law has not been looked into inspite of
having engaged all concerned with the dispute for almost seven years. Thus the verdict has been blatantly
manipulated into a compromise formula when such was not feasible nor tenable on the ground .

III. A point by point rebuttal to some of the observations made in the verdict
(a) “Page 21 of the TPO/BOA verdict states that “None of the parties have produced an documentary
evidence to substantiate their claim over Kezoltsa/Koziirii/Kazing forest. In fact, all the three
parties are claiming the disputed forest only based on oral testimony.

Rebuttal : There is already a 1933 decree of the Manipur Darbar, settling the boundary between Maram
Khullen and Mao people (largely Mao Pungdong village) which was reaffirmed by the parties in the year 1995
and honoured by both parties. The relative documents are in the possession of the TPO/BOA.
This boundary between Maram Khullen and Mao Pungdong with stone markers was pointed out to the TPO
and the BOA during the field visit on 19th November, 2018 in the presence of the Maram Khullen
representatives, who stated that south of the boundary is Maram Khullen land, while north of the boundary
belongs to Mao Pungdong. How did the verdict ignore this clinching evidence endorsed by both parties
present in front of the TPO and BOA official ? We ask what more documentary evidence or proof is required
in this regard ?

(b) Page 23 of the TPO /BOA verdict states “None have indicated the total area of land claimed by
them over Kezolta/Koziirii/Kazing forest. Hence, according to the BOA all claimants are not sure of
the total area of land claimed by each of them.”

(c) Rebuttal : In the Common issues/questionnaires over the land dispute over Koziirii to be answered by the
contending parties, framed by the TPO/BAO, Question No 6 was “What is the approximate area of forest
cover claimed by you ? “

Mao Council has responded to the query with the following facts - Total area of Koziirii = 32.29 sq kms , Mao
Dziiko = 11.28 sq km. Further, in the Map submitted to the TPO/BOA by the Mao Council, Koziirii forest has
been clearly indicated as the encroached area and indicated on the right side margin of the map as measuring
32.29 sq km
The above observation made in the TPO/BOA verdict is therefore incorrect. It reflects lack of thorough study
and examination of the statements made by the Mao Council in response to the TPO/BOA’s questionnaires
and also on the materials/documents submitted to them.

(d) Page 23 of the TPO/BOA verdict says ”Both the parties neither know the total area of the Dziiko/Dziikou
valley nor the boundary demarcation between the neighboring villages at the periphery of Dziiko/Dziikou”

Rebuttal : It is noteworthy that SAPO in their position paper has stated that their ancestor while staying at
Kezoltsa had taken possession of Dziikou valley and its surroundings and it became their property. In the
“Issues suggested for SAPO framed by the TPO/BOA Pt. No 5, question raised was “ Whether , the claim of
SAPO includes Dziikou in the present case?”. SAPO responded with a clear “No”. On the other hand the
TPO/BOA verdict at page 21 states that “The SAPO claim that the whole valley of Dziiko/Dziikuo belongs to
them”. The other villages who obviously own their respective ancestral parts of Dziiko valley in the north-
west and the west- south may like to take up the claim of SAPO over the entire Dziiko valley.
The Mao people claims only 11.28 sq km of Dziiko valley which lies immediately to the north of Koziirii and
spreads down from Isii peak. Mao Dziiko is bounded by the stream flowing from the foot of Isii peak in the
north, by the Emei Chikhe (Mao Cave) as the stream turn west and by the Ancestral willow tree planted by
our ancestors on the bank of Dziiko ri ver in the South West. The landmarks of Mao cave(Emei-Chikhe) and
Ancestral willow tree (Oziisii) on the banks of Dziiko river have been indicated and explained in the
“suggested issues for Mao Council” (response to Ques no 9) apart from pointing them out in the TPO/BOA
meetings on the magnified map submitted as official document. The natural landscape of stream flowing
down from the foot of Isii which later meets the Dziiko river are the boundaries of Mao Dziiko with the
landmarks of the cave and the willow trees along them. Notably, physical field visit by the TPO/BOA to verify
the Mao claim over Mao Dziiko was never taken up though an aerial survey for some of the
officials/members was organised .

IV. Customary law and practice abandoned in the verdict

(a) The Oath taking by our ancestor Neni Kopfujii about 130-135 years ago in the land dispute between
Pudunamei and Punanamei on one side and Viswema on the other, asserted the Mao boundary south of the
landmark of Mizhudo Kosii on Isii mountain, the Isiibi Kono, which touches the stream from the foot of Isii
and down to the main Dziiko river, which constitutes the North and north-west boundary of Mao Dziiko. The
same have been indicated in our position paper and explained on magnified map in the TPO/BOA sittings.
SAPO had also admitted in their statement dated 26/07/2016 that there was a land dispute near “Mitotsii”
around 120-30 years ago. “Mitotsii” was the first landmark of the land boundary sworn by Neni son of
Kopfujü.

When for the Nagas and the Tenyimis, Oath taking is the ultimate option when no other amicable options
were tenable in a dispute, it is incomprehensible how Neni Kopfuii’s Oath did not find due place of primacy in
the verdict.

A significant observation in the written submissions made by SAPO was on the massive logging by Mao
individuals in the Koziirii area during 1992-95 and also construction of road to the Isii foothills during 1996-
2000 unchallenged and without disturbance from any quarter. To this, SAPO in their additional statement
dated 26/07/2016 on page 2 stated that “ SAPO had never relinquished its ownership and possession of
Kezoltsa, the massive logging during 1992-95 and construction of roads in 1996-2000 as claimed by Mao
Council is a clear case of stealing and encroachment’’. If the SAPO is the real owner of Koziirii forest why did
they not object or resist against such activities at the material time period of several years ? This is not a
fresh argument. This particular point is within contemporary memory and in official records but has not been
given primacy or noted duly in the Verdict of the 19/12/2022 of the TPO/BOA.

The statement of the SAPO is ample proof that SAPO had encroached into Koziirii much after the massive
logging of 1992-95 and the construction of road in 1996-2000 in Koziirii area from the Mao side openly and
freely. The encroachment first took place in 2000 with Daniel of Viswema led rest house construction and
second, the incursion into Koziirii in 2014 with heavy machinery and armed guards.

(b) A video downloaded from utube shows Mr K. Raina one of the Maram arbitrators, addressing a cultural
program at Maram Khullen in April 2022 where he said the followings
“ Marams has no rights but God will not leave us empty handed and will get some benefits. This problem
started around 1995-96 till today. Marams joined the issue only in 2016 and started around 2017. Since we
have good friend circle, we are able to hide and manipulate those important documents. We convinced our
friends through financial means and drinking and eating together as we know don’t have any right in this
issue. If the truth has to be revealed we don’t have any rights”

A complaint with the above evidence was lodged with the BOA and a BOA/TPO meeting was convened to
discuss the matter amongst other agenda. Mr K. Raina, aside from being one of the Arbitrators representing
Maram Khullen, is also a self declared landowner in the disputed area, He apologized for his utterances in the
video, (which confirms the veracity of the video) in which he had implicated the members of the BOA and the
TPO and jeopardized the integrity of the house. This is on record and with the office of the TPO/BOA.

Is it against Tenyimi customary law and practice to take into account the public utterances of no other than
one in the position of an Arbitrator representing a contesting party in the dispute ? What Mr K. Raina has
uttered is the ultimate damning evidence against the Maram khullen’s claim to Koziirii and is in consonance
with the fact of the stone markers at the boundary of Maram Khullen and Mao Pungdong in the rebuttal
made at III(a) above. Maram Khullen simply has no case by the customary law and practices of the Tenyimi.

V. On the arbitration process of the BOA and the verdict.

a) All the members of the BOAs were asked to narrate the respective traditional practice for
administration of Oaths in disputes - in what manner was the oath to be taken, which party was to have
the first preference to take Oath, and if there was to be a counter oath in what manner was it to be
pronounced. Models were submitted to the BOA.
b) Towards the end, In the BOA exercise 3 options - Division, Joint Ownership and Oath taking were
discussed at length as per the BOA communication dated 4 th June, 2022. It was the general
understanding that all the three contesting parties must concur on any one of the three options. A
consensus could not be arrived at with both SAPO and Mao Council giving their written assertions for
customary law and Maram Khullen being non committal.
c) The 3 contending parties were not party to the verdict, nor signatories of the verdict. It is not known
how the build-up indicated at (a) and (b) was suddenly changed into the verdict declared on 19 th
December, 2022.
d) We are doubtful whether the verdict had been drafted by the BOA officials, which is the sole authority
for doing so, as the non customary spirit and contents of the said verdict were not agreed or decided
upon in the sittings of the BOA.

After all the narrations in the position paper, rejoinders, additional statements, field visits and illustrations
on Map, it is difficult to understand how the verdict of the TPO/BOA of 19 th December, 2022 was declared in
its very form and substance at the end of the 7 years long arbitration process, professedly based on
customary law and practice of the Nagas(Tenyimis).
As Tenyimis, as a party to the dispute being arbitrated on the basis of customary laws and practices of
Tenyimis, the Mao Council is therefore under no obligation to abide by the verdict, that has been arrived
without the basis of Naga(Tenyimi) customary law and practices.

(Shri. Dr. SAHENI LOLI) Dated Tadubi

President 03/01/2023
Mao Council