Thawai Kuki Village Authority Issues Strong Rebuttal, Rejects ‘Hamlet’ Claim as Legally Baseless

The Thawai Kuki Village Authority has issued a strongly worded rebuttal to the March 14 statement of the Thoyee (Thawai Tangkhul) Village Authority, categorically rejecting claims that Thawai Kuki is merely a subordinate hamlet under Tangkhul jurisdiction. Terming the assertion “historically incorrect, legally untenable, and contradicted by official records,” the authority has presented a series of archival and judicial documents to establish its position.

In a detailed statement, the Thawai Kuki Village Authority asserted that documentary evidence from colonial and post-colonial administrative records clearly proves that Thawai Kuki existed as an independent Kuki chieftainship village with well-defined territorial jurisdiction.

Citing official proceedings from the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ukhrul, the authority pointed to Civil Case No. 532 of 1920–1921, which formally recorded the territorial boundaries of Thawai Kuki under Chief Khupkho Kuki. The boundary demarcation—authenticated on July 2, 1921—covered areas stretching from Haphulok Simana in the north to the Thoubal River in the west, thereby establishing formal administrative recognition of the village and directly contradicting claims of subordination.

Further strengthening its case, the authority referred to Miscellaneous Case No. 71 of 1945–46, in which the Tangkhul authority reportedly admitted before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ukhrul, that land in the Mahadev Hill range had been sold to the Chief of Thawai Kuki. The order, signed on November 21, 1945, was presented as direct evidence of recognized proprietary and territorial rights.

The statement also highlighted appellate proceedings in 1947, where the earlier administrative findings were upheld. The appellate authority found no reason to differ from the original ruling and noted that boundary stones had already been erected and mutually agreed upon, thereby judicially affirming the land rights of the Thawai Kuki chief.

In addition, the authority cited Miscellaneous Case No. 268 of 1955–56, wherein the court explicitly held that “the original title still lies with the plaintiff village (Thawai Kuki).” The ruling further directed the opposing village to shift west of the Thoubal River, warning that eviction could be enforced if necessary—an order the authority described as clear legal recognition of its territorial ownership.

Subsequent proceedings in 1963 were also referenced to demonstrate continued assertion and recognition of Thawai Kuki’s territorial rights, with courts indicating that the matter pertained to legal title rather than administrative jurisdiction.

Beyond historical records, the statement invoked constitutional and statutory protections. It noted that Thawai Kuki is a statutorily recognised Kuki Hill village under the Manipur State Hill Peoples (Administration) Regulation, 1947, with its status reaffirmed through official gazette notifications and protected under Article 371C of the Constitution of India. The authority further asserted that its customary land falls within the ambit of Article 300A, and is safeguarded by laws including the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, and the Forest Rights Act, 2006.

The authority emphasized that no portion of Thawai Kuki land has ever been lawfully acquired under any existing land acquisition laws, including the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. It therefore maintained that there exists no legal, administrative, or constitutional basis for the Thoyee Village Authority to claim jurisdiction over Thawai Kuki.

Reiterating the customary legal framework, the statement underlined that under Kuki customary law, land ownership vests in the village chief, a principle upheld in judicial precedents and reinforced by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Samatha vs State of Andhra Pradesh (1997).

Concluding its rebuttal, the Thawai Kuki Village Authority stated that any attempt to portray the village as a subordinate hamlet or to deny its territorial jurisdiction “cannot be sustained in law, history, or administrative precedent,” and stands firmly contradicted by archival and judicial records.

The authority urged that public discourse on the issue remain grounded in verifiable historical and legal evidence, warning against what it termed as “misleading narratives” that disregard documented facts.