The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of ensuring a fair hearing for the parties and the duty of the appellate court to examine the justness of the Kebang's decision before affirming and enforcing it.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. This case should serve as a reminder to all those, who discharge judicial functions under the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945, that when they exercise judicial powers under these Regulations, they really exercise powers of the Sovereign and a Sovereign must not only do justice, but must also appear to have done justice. A neglected ember or spark, if left unattended, unquenched and dissatisfied, can destroy the whole house. A neglected aggrieved litigant can, similarly, bring to disrepute the whole administration of justice and even one such case may, at times, shake the confidence of the people in the impartiality and effectiveness of the judicial making processes and justice delivery system. It is one thing to follow text of law; it is quite Anr. to follow its spirit. It will be paradoxical for a judicial Court to follow the letters of law and not its spirit. While exercising judicial powers, therefore, not only letter of law, but also its spirit has to be followed; otherwise, a judicial Court will, instead of having done justice, end up having done injustice.

2. The judgment and order under challenge in the present revision petition were passed on 20.03.2001, by the learned Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, Pashighat, in Civil Dispute No. HT-23/88/99/2000-01 upholding the decision of the Kebang held on 15.01.2001 relating to the land, which formed the subject-matter of dispute between the parties. It is the Appellant in the said appeal, who has approached this Court challenging the legality of the impugned judgment and order, dated 20.03.2001, aforementioned.

3. I have perused the materials on record including the impugned order.

4. I have heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr. C. Barua, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party.

5. Though the learned Counsel for the parties have addressed this Court, at length, on various aspects of the disputes facts, which have led to the institution of the present revision, I consciously remain, for the reasons, which are assigned herein below, from referring to those facts except those, which are essential for the purpose of disposal of this revision petition.

6. Facts necessary for disposal of this revision are, briefly stated, thus: The Kabang held, on 15.01.2001, decided to the effect that the land, in dispute, belongs to the opposite party. Aggrieved by this decision, the Appellant preferred an appeal. The decision rendered in the appeal, so preferred, stands impugned in this revision by the Appellant.

7. It is not in dispute before me that the dispute between the parties was governed by the provisions of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as "the regulation"). Chapter-IV of the Regulation of 1945, which is titled as "Civil Proceedings", relate to administration of civil justice. The scheme of Chapter-IV, if read carefully, is that a civil dispute shall be, normally, settled by the villagers, where the dispute arises. The aim obviously is to encourage amicable settlements of disputes at the grass-root level and least possible interference by statutorily established Courts so that disputes are settled in accordance with popular opinion and acceptable to majority of the persons concerned. No wonder, therefore, that the Regulation provides that the Deputy Commissioners and the Assistant Commissioners, who are the authorities, before whom civil disputes are raised for decision, shall, if the parties are indigenous, endeavor to persuade them to submit to arbitration by Panchayat. This Panchayat is commonly called Kebang. The manner and procedure for holding of Kebang is also indicated in the Regulation. Since a popular decision may not always be just decision, decisions of Kebang are appealable under Regulation 46. For the sake of brevity, Regulation 46 is quoted hereinbelow:

46(1). Any person aggrieved by a decision of a village