Point of Law: Payment of compensation in lieu of land - Inadequacy of cost - Petitioner No. 3 and his mother had put their signature in Annexure II, i.e. the deed of final settlement. Now, the petitioner cannot raise the issue.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition, under section 50 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 is preferred by Shri Kamin Dai, Shri Kading Dai and Shri Kanggong Dai, challenging the legality and correctness of the Order, dated 31.07.2017, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pasighat in Civil Appeal No. 05/2016 (Shri Kanggong Dai and Others vs. Shri Oyem Dai).

2. It is to be mentioned here that vide impugned order the Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners and upheld the decision Kebang dated 12.01.2016.

3. The factual background leading to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition is adumbrated herein-below:

“Late Oni Dai was the father of the present petitioners. He was a Government Servant and retired as DFO. He possessed huge plot of land at Diking area of Pasighat. In the year 1987, Oni Dai and Shri Oyem Dai entered into an agreement (verbal) that Oyem Dai will clear forest land of Oni Dai and in lieu of the same Oni Dai will allot/cede a plot of land for residential purpose ‘Kumol’ or ‘Kumkor’ to him. Pursuant to said verbal agreement Oyem Dai has cleared the jungle and while Oni Dai was ready to allot a plot of land to Oyem Dai in the said location for residential purpose. However, he could not materialize the same due to objections from his family members. But, he assured to provide the land somewhere else except in Diking area, where he cleared the forest.

Then after elapse of 26 years, Oyem Dai again reminded Oni Dai about the verbal agreement. Then regretting for the delay, Oni Dai agreed to pay compensation in lieu of the land. But, Oyem Dai did not agree and insisted on for a plot of land for residential purpose. Thereafter, a family level Kebang was called in the house of one Obang Dai, on 12.01.2016, wherein a decision was taken to provide ‘one pura’ of land to Oyem Dai at Ramro-Tulap area. And Oyem Dai also accepted the offer without any hesitation. Thereafter, one agreement to that effect was signed by Oni Dai and Oyem Dai in presence of Shri Dading Daso, Kaling Dai, Shri Oshek Dai, Kanggong Dai, Tarin Dai, Smt. Omi Dai W/o Oni Dai, and Kalig Dai, who have signed over the same as witness.

Then being aggrieved, the petitioners filed one complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Pasighat. Then as ordered by the Deputy Commissioner, vide Memo No. HT-95/2003, dated 9.11.2016, one Kebang was conducted on 14.11.2016, under the chairpersonship of Smt. Opet Gao, HGB-Mibuk Village. The complainant and the respondent also remained present in the said Kebang. The elderly members of Dai Clan and other village elders also remained present. In the said Kebang it has been decided that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid by Oyem dai as a cost of one pura of land allotted to him by Oni Dai and that the same is full and final settlement which shall not be reviewed by either party. But, the present petitioners did not sign the Kebang decision, though the same was signed by Smt. Opet Gao, HGB-Mibuk Village and Smt. Omi Dai W/o Oni Dai.

Then being aggrieved by the Kebang decision the present revisionists have preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Pasighat. Then hearing both the parties on 31.07.2017 the Deputy Commissioner, Pasighat has passed the impugned order dismissing the appeal and upholding the Kebang decision.”

4. Being highly aggrieved by the decision of the Deputy Commissioner, Pasighat, dated 31.07.2017, the appellants preferred the present revision petition under section 50 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 on the following grounds:

(i) That, the learned court below has committed grave error in facts by declaring that the petitioners and their mother have assented to the DAI family decision dated 12.01.2016, and that the petitioners’ mother Smt. Omi Dai put her signatures in the decision.

(ii) That, as per Adi customs, once the male heirs attains the age of majority, they become co-owners of all la