Allowed

Motu Riram and Anr. v. Karyom Riram

Gauhati HC20 Jul 2022CRP/28/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order by the Additional Deputy Commissioner to conduct a customary land dispute resolution (keba). The court held that post-separation of judiciary in Arunachal Pradesh, the ADC lacked jurisdiction to direct village authorities, rendering both the directing order and the subsequent keba decision invalid.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 08.03.2022 directing the keba and the resultant keba decision dated 07.05.2022 are set aside and quashed. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed.

Motu Riram and Anr. Vs Karyom Riram — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/8

¶2

GAHC040006422022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)

¶4

Case No. : CRP 28/2022

¶5

1:Motu Riram and Anr. S/o Lt. Rimo Riram, Village Essi Chiku, PO/PS Basar, District Leparada, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶6

2: Jobom Riram S/o Lt. Tojo Riram Village Essi Chiku PO/PS Basar District Leparada Arunachal Pradesh

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:Karyom Riram S/o Lt. Tumkar Riram, Village Essi Chiku, PO/PS Basar, District Leparada, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : T T Tara

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : Kamal Saxena

¶11

Page No.# 2/8

¶12

BEFORE

¶13

HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Date : 20-07-2022

¶16

Heard Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner along with Mr K. Saxena, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

¶17

2. This is an application under the Article 227 of the Constitution of India invoking supervisory Jurisdiction of High Court to quash and set aside the village level keba decision dated 07.05.2022 rendered under the Chairmanship of Mr. Henken Basar(H/GB), President (G.B.W.A), Leparada District & others who are the HGBs/GBs of other village authorities on basis order dated No.LRD/LK01/176/2402121-12402 dated 08.03.2022, issued by the ADC, Basar, to decide the disputed land raised by the respondent against the petitioners, which is located in territorial Jurisdiction of Customary Court (Village) of Essi Chiku village.

¶18

3. The case in brief is that the petitioners and private respondent in the instant Civil Revision Petition had a dispute over the land located at Horle within Essi Chiku village under Leparada District. The Cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the village authorities, per se customary Court at Essi Chiku village in terms of regulation 5 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945. In the instant case, the Additional Deputy

¶19

Page No.# 3/8

¶20

Commissioner, Leparada District, Basar has issued the impugned order dated 08.03.2022 being memo No. LRD/LK-01/176/2402121-12402 whereby, Mr. Henken Basar (H/GB), President (G.B.W.A) (HGBs/GBs) of Bam, Pagi, Gori and Soi village were directed to conduct a keba on 07.05.2022 to adjudicate the dispute over land located at Horle within Essi Chiku village. Pursuant to said impugned order dated 08.03.2022 issued by ADC, Leparada, Mr. Henken Basar (H/GB), President (G.B.W.A) (HGBs/GBs) of Bam, Pagi, Gori and Soi village conducted the Keba and passed impugned Keba decision dated 07.05.2022 and much to the adverse of the petitioners.

¶21

4. Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 08.03.2022 being memo No.LRD/LK 01/176/240212112402 issued by the ADC, Leparada directing, Mr. Henken Basar (H/GB), President (G.B.W.A) (HGBs/GBs) of Bam, Pagi, Gori and Soi village to conduct the Keba and passed impugned Keba decision dated 07.05.2022 is legally not substantiate and illegal being without jurisdiction as provided under regulation 5 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945, because only the customary court of Essi Chiku village has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent, on the basis that of both parties are of Essi Chiku village.

¶22

Page No.# 4/8

¶23

5. The learned counsel further submits that the ADC, Basar has failed to appreciate the fact that after separation of judiciary from executive in Arunachal Pradesh, Executive Magistrates has no power to issue any order directing the village authorities to conduct Keba including appointment of Keba members. This proposition of law has already been settled by this in the cases of The Registrar General, Gauhati High Court Vs. Union of India & Ors, reported in 2013 (4) GLT 1109 , as well as in the cases of Abu Maj FamilyVs-Deputy Commissioner & Anr [WP (C) No. 181 (AP)/2017] and Narah Messo -Vs- State of A.P. 7 Ors [WP (C) No. 99(AP)/2018] . Therefore, the impugned order dated 08.03.2022 issued by the ADC Basar being Memo No. LRD/LK 01/176/2402121-12402 fixing Keba on 19.03.2022, which was held on 07.05.2022 under the Chairmanship of Sri Henken Basar, HGB at 1900 hours at Essi Chiku Community Hall is a violation of settled proposition of law by this Court, hence, liable to be quashed and set aside to being illegal and arbitrary to secure the ends of justice.

¶24

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that before coming into force of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Court Act, 2021, appeal lies to the Deputy Commissioner/Additional Deputy Commissioner from the decision of Customary Courts however, now, appeal lies to District Sessions Court. In the instant case, the impugned Keba decision dated 07.05.2022 was rendered on

¶25

Page No.# 5/8

¶26

the basis of order dated 08.03.2022 issued by the Additional Deputy commissioner, Basar who himself was the appellate authority under the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945, as such there is no forum for appeal against appeal provided in the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945.

¶27

7. Mr. K. Saxena, the learned counsel for the opposite party has not contested the submissions made by Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner and also submits that the learned ADC, had acted beyond its jurisdiction in passing the order No. LRD/LK-01/176/2402121-12402 dated 08.03.2022. He has also relied on the decision of this court in The Registrar

¶28

General, Gauhati High Court Vs. Union of India & Ors, (supra).

¶29

8. Having heard both the parties, wherein the learned counsel for the opposite party has not contested the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner, for setting aside the impugned order dated 08.03.2022 being memo No. LRD/LK-01/176/2402121-12402 issued by ADC Leparada directing, Mr. Henken Basar (H/GB), President (G.B.W.A) (HGBs/GBs) of Bam, Pagi, Gori and Soi village to conduct the Keba and the impugned Keba decision dated 07.05.2022, it is seen that this Court in The Registrar General, Gauhati High Court Vs. Union of India & Ors, (supra) has held that;

¶30

Page No.# 6/8

¶31

“The Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2006 have been promulgated by the State of Arunachal Pradesh constituting judicial service. Selection, appointment and posting of officers has taken place against almost all the sanctioned posts. Courts have been duly constituted and are functioning. Vide Central Laws (Extension to Arunachal Pradesh) Act, 2007, CPC has been made applicable to the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Vide notification dated 24.10.2011, CrPC has been made applicable to the State of Arunachal Pradesh. (14) Question for consideration is whether Civil Courts Act or the North East Frontier (Administration and Justice) Regulations, 1945 (the Regulations) would apply in relation to matters dealt with by the regular Courts manned by the members of Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service or such courts have to be taken to have been constituted under the Civil Courts Act.

¶32

Admittedly, the State of Arunachal Pradesh is in no manner different from the districts of Dima Hasao and Karbi Anglong in the State of Assam except that Administration of Justice Act on the pattern of 2009 Acts mentioned in Para 3 above have not been enacted. Nonetheless, after setting up of courts, it is not possible to hold that the regulations still hold the field even to the extent of conferment of jurisdiction on courts merely because the Regulations to that extent have not been expressly repealed. Once Civil Courts Act is held applicable, as we have held in respect of tribal districts of Assam, the Regulations will cease to operate to that extent.

¶33

(15) Thus, administration of justice by regularly constituted Courts manned by judicial officers of the cadre will function as per the Civil Courts Act and to that

¶34

Page No.# 7/8

¶35

extent that North East Frontier (Administration and Justice) Regulations, 1945 conferring judicial powers on the executive will cease to operate. The doctrine of implied repeal will apply.”

¶36

9. In view of the above decision which has also been applied in the subsequent decisions of this Court in Abu Maj Family -Vs- Deputy Commissioner & Anr (Supra) and Narah Messo -Vs- State of A.P 7 Ors (Supra) and considering the fact that the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021 was already enacted, I am of the considered view that both the parties have rightly submitted that the learned ADC, had acted beyond its jurisdiction in passing the order No. LRD/LK-01/176/2402121-12402 dated 08.03.2022 and is liable to be set aside and that the resultant Keba order dated 07.05.2022 is therefore not sustainable.

¶37

10. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view that sufficient grounds have been laid out to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside and quashing the order No. LRD/LK-01/176/2402121-12402 dated 08.03.2022 and the resultant Keba order dated 07.05.2022. The parties may

¶38

approach the appropriate forum for redress of their grievances, if so advised.

¶39

11. CRP No. 28 (AP) of 2022 accordingly stands disposed.

¶40

Page No.# 8/8

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Comparing Assistant

Motu Riram and Anr. v. Karyom Riram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Motu Riram and Anr. v. Karyom Riram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nabam Kojum Vs the State of Ap

The Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and 3 Ors. Vs Larbin Nasi and 2 Ors.

Onyang Chije (Angu) Vs the State of Ap and Anr.

Libo Ragmuk Vs Yapi Ragmuk

Lhousakuolie Metha Vs the State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Patel Engineering Limited and 4 Ors. Vs Md. Rafijul Haque