JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

Indira Shah, J. - Heard Mr. Dicky Panging, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Muk Pertin, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Respondents No. 1, 2, and 3.

2. Late Gidam Yomgam, father of Respondent No. 1 was appointed as Jamadar by the then undivided Government of Assam. In lieu of his services as Jamadar, the Government of Assam allotted him a plot of land measuring 607.66 sq. mtrs., situated at Old Market, Aalo, in the year 1952. After his death, the Respondent No. 1 became the owner of the aforesaid plot of land as Successor. The petitioner was married to Respondent No. 1's son Sri Libi Yomgam and after her marriage, when her husband was pursuing studies, she started living at the said plot of land. Her husband had constructed a wooden structure on the said plot of land and leased out to ABC India Ltd. The petitioner was collecting rent in respect of the said plot of land. The petitioner's husband, during his lifetime, applied for mutation of the land, in question, in his favour. He also applied for allotment of an adjacent plot of land measuring 1039 sq. mtrs [plot No.41(C)] in his favour. In the year 2002, the petitioner's husband died in an accident. Thereafter, the petitioner being wife and the legal heir of her deceased husband, applied for and obtained the Succession Certificate in her favour, in respect of the properties belonging to her husband including the Plot Nos. 41 [B] and 41 [C] located at Old Market Aalo. The said 2 plots of land, as applied by the petitioner, were mutated in her favour Sometime in the year, 2009, the Respondent No.2 who is an UDC posted in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, West Siang District, Aalo, filed a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, and claimant the aforesaid 2 plots of land by stating that taking advantage of old-age of Respondent No. 1, the said 2 plots of land have been illegally regularised in favour of the petitioner. It was further alleged that the said 2 plots of land have been divided amongst the Respondents No.2 and 3 and the son of the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner, on receipt of the said complaint, vide order dated 25.11.2010 convened a District Level Keba (DLK, in short), for settlement of the dispute. In the impugned order dated 25.09.2010, the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, has observed that there is no village authority at District Headquarter, Aalo. Therefore, as per the convention followed at West Siang District, a DLK was convened at District Keba Dere, Aalo for amicable settlement of the case. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an objection on 11.12.2010. However, the objection of the petitioner was not attended to and by another order dated 24.01.2011, convened the DLK on 03.02.2011. Another proceeding of Keba has been challenged on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to refer the dispute to the DLK. The Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation. 1945 [Regulation of 1945, in short] regulates the civil proceedings by the Deputy Commissioner and the village authorities and the aforesaid Regulation of 1945 does not envisage a forum of DLK for deciding any civil dispute. The Deputy Commissioner had referred the dispute to a non-existent judicial authority. That apart, the Succession Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner, has been deemed to have been cancelled by the DLK since the property, in dispute, has been distributed by the Keba Decision and without jurisdiction and authority of law.

3. It is averred in the counter affidavit filed by the contesting respondents that the dispute between the parties is a family affair and both the parties are indigenous and as per Section 52 of the Regulation of 1945, the Court of Deputy Commissioner shall be guided by the spirit and not by the letters of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The matter was referred to the DLK as Aalo is a township and there is no village authority' to decide th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document