Back
2017 Supreme(Gau) 1415
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI AT ITANAGAR BENCH
ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, J.
Long Doruk @ Rukbo – Petitioner
Versus
Taking Tamut – Respondent
CRP No. 23 (AP) of 2012, CRP No. 60 of 2014
Decided On : 24-01-2017
For the Petitioners: Mr. Tony Pertin, Mr. L. Tenzin, Mr. A.K. Singh.
For the Respondents: Mr. P. Taffo, Ms. N. Danggen, Ms. J. Doji, Mr. O. Duggong.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 227 and 226 - Assam Frontier Regulation Act,1945 - Sections 50, 46 and 38 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 105 - Plot Purchasing - Land Occupation - It is case of petitioner that he had purchased a plot of land upon payment and in addition to that he had also purchased two other plots of land - Accordingly petitioner had taken possession of aforesaid 3 plots of land and he had occupied same by clearing jungle for Jhum cultivation for about 27 years and 16 years respectively - During aforesaid period of his occupation over said 3 plot of lands there was no claim or counter-claim from anyone regarding ownership and possession of said land - Held, It has been held that when so considered it is not difficult to construe that word final connotes not only that no further appeal is provided under Act but that Act imposes a complete bar to further proceedings arising out of dispute which resulted into institution of proceeding under Act - It is made clear that Deputy Commissioner while considering matter would proceed to first ascertain as to whether decision had been placed before Court of Deputy Commissioner for it being recorded or not - In event Deputy Commissioner finds that order had not been duly recorded Deputy Commissioner would take appropriate steps to record decision - On other hand if Deputy Commissioner finds that order had already been recorded as required Deputy Commissioner would provide copy of order to parties so as to enable parties to proceed further under procedure of law - Petition stands disposed of.
1. Heard Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the sole respondent.
2. This court also expresses the appreciation of the services rendered by Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel, in order to arrive to an appropriate decision regarding the issues involved in this petition.
3. The present application is an application for revision under article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 50 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945.
4. The legality and the validity of the judgment and order dated 8.8.2011 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, (FTC) Western Zone, Basar in Case No. BSR/TS-39/06 is under challenge in this appeal.
5. The core facts leading to the present revision application is that the petitioner is a resident of Kelek Mirbuk village in Pasighat in the District of East Siang, whereas the respondent is a resident of Tajum Village which is also within the same jurisdiction.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that on 12.6.1961 he had purchased a plot of land from Shri Yekrin Rukbo upon payment of Rs. 600/- at Tajum and in addition to that, he had also purchased two other plots of land from Shri Omik Yompang at Rs. 1,100/- Accordingly, the petitioner had taken the possession of aforesaid 3 plots of land and he had occupied the same by clearing the jungle for Jhum cultivation for about 27 years and 16 years respectively. During the aforesaid period of his occupation over the said 3 plot of lands, there was no claim or counter-claim from anyone regarding the ownership and possession of the said land.
7. The schedule of the land is as follows:
1.
In the North
The plot of Piak Dai purchased and transferred to Shri Tabom Riba.
2.
In the West
The Tajum to Risong Bedang.
3.
In the East
The Tajum Korong and portion of the plot touches the land of Taking Tamut.
4.
In the South
The land of Shri Bapen Moyong and portion of the plot touches the land of Taking Tamut.
8. Sometime in the year 1998, the respondent had illegally encroached the entire land of the petitioner on the plea that he had purchased the same from one, Shri Oyi Rome S/o late Kodang Rome of Mongku Village and in order to settle the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, a Kebang was held on 9.7.1988, which was attended by the Gam Burahs (‘GBs’) and elders of Balek Group who were conversant with the issue. The Kebang by its decision dated 9.7.1988 had rejected the claim of the respondent. After the Kebang decision of 9.7.1988, the respondents had for the 2nd time purchased the same plot of land from Shri Boduk Tamuk of Yapgo Village. Consequently another Kebang was held on 8.6.1992 in Case No. HT-186/91-63/92. The learned counsel for the respondent Ms. N. Danggen, submits that the Kebang that was held on 8.6.1992 is in fact the first Kebang and there was no prior Kebang held on 9.7.1988.
9. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, another Kebang was held on 16.4.1993 in Case No. HT-52/93. Mr. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, states that the subsequent Kebang of 16.4.1993 in Case No. HT-52/93 was held pursuant to a complaint raised by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Pasighat against the Kebang decision dated 8.6.1992 and the Deputy Commissioner, Pasighat referred the matter back to the Kebang for their adjudication.
10. Be that as it may, against the order dated 16.4.1993, an appeal under section 46(1) of the AFR, 1945 was filed by the petitioner which was registered as Title Suit No. 04/2000 in the Court of the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, Pasighat. Subsequently, the aforesaid Title Suit No. 04/2000 was transferred to the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, (FTC), Basar and was re-numbered as BSRTS-39/2006. The said T
