The court upheld the decision of the Deputy Commissioner based on the provisions of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation of 1945 and the options available to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 46 (3) of the Regulation.

JUDGMENT

Parthivjyoti Saikia, J. - Heard the learned counsel, Mr. M. Kato appearing for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents.

2. By filing the present petition, the judgment and order dated 28.04.2017 passed in Kebang Case No. LJ (K)-107/2017 and judgment and order dated 05.04.2018, passed in Appeal No. LJ/Kebang-01/2017 are challenged.

3. The petitioner has been occupying 500 acres of land since 1984 and in the year 1988, he was given a Land Possession Certificate by the competent authority. Thereafter, the private respondent started to stake their claim over the land and on their behest, a Kebang was held. In fact, instead of comprising of village authority, as envisaged by the Assam Frontier (Administration of justice) Regulation, 1945, the said Kebang consisted of some other person whom the present petitioner claimed to be unauthorized to take part in the Kebang. Finally, the aforesaid Kebang passed a judgment in favour of the private respondent. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Tezu and the appeal was also dismissed. Hence, the present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for setting aside the aforesaid decision.

4. Under the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation of 1945, in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, the civil justice is administered by the Deputy Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner and the village authority. According to the law laid down in Section 46 (3) of the Regulation of 1945, the decision of Kebang is to be forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner. In that case, the Deputy Commissioner shall have 3 options to exercise. The first option is to affirm and enforce the decision of the Kebang as his own decision. The second option is that if the Deputy Commissioner finds that the decision of the Kebang is not satisfactory, in that case the Deputy Commissioner shall try the case de novo. The third option is that the Deputy Commissioner may refer the matter to the Panchayat and in that case it shall have presumed that the parties have agreed to arbitration.

5. In the case in hand, the Deputy Commissioner has written a judgment holding that the decision of the Kebang was correct. So the next step is to execute the decision.

6. It has already been mentioned that in the State of Arunachal Pradesh civil justice is administered by the Deputy Commissioner, etc. under the provision of the Regulation of 1945. In the year 2011, the judiciary was separated from executive and the Code of Civil Procedure has been applied since then. The regulation of 1945 still operates even after that. So when a civil dispute is taken care of under the Regulation of 1945, there will be a conflict of law if at one point of time the pending matter is suddenly put into the domain of the Code of Civil Procedure.

7. Be that as it may, I have gone through the impugned judgment dated 05.04.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The impugned judgment says that the petitioner had not complied with the Section 45 of the Regulation of 1945. Section 45 of the Regulation of 1945 lays down that unless any party having a right of appeal against a decision of a authority gives notice, when such decision is pronounced, of his intention to appeal against it, the village authority shall carry out the decision forthwith, and for such purpose may proceed by distraint of property belonging to any person liable to pay any under the decision, unless such person furnish security to the satisfaction of the village authority. Section 45 of the Regulation of 1945 further provides that if notice of intention to appeal is given, the village authority shall send the parties and witness to the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner forthwith and one of the members of the village authority or one of the independent witness shall accompany them.

8. The impugned judgment further holds that the appeal was filed after the expi