JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Ms. N. Danggen, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. T.T. Tara, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

2. This is an application under Section 50 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 (for short referred to as the “Regulation”) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 29.11.2016 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Siang District, Rumgong issued vide Memo No. RMG/JUD-20(K)/2016-17/1181.

3. The controversy which arises before this Court is in relation to the Power of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 46 of the Regulation. For the purpose of appreciating the controversy, it is relevant to take note of the facts of the case.

4. Certain disputes arose between the Petitioner and the Respondents over a plot of land. The village authorities i.e. the Kebang gave a decision on 16.12.2011 thereby marking out the boundary of the stream and also to the extent of right of coverage of the stream owner in the land area in between the Jhum land and the stream. The Kebang further decided that starting from the stream up to 150 feet was declared in favour of the Respondents. The right, title and possession over 150 feet were decided in favour of the petitioner. The Petitioner thereupon received an order from the Circle Officer, Payum to attend a meeting. On getting the said order, the petitioner lodged a complaint stating inter-alia that the case has already been settled and both the parties agreed upon the decision. However a second Kebang was held on 16.03.2012 and an ex-parte order was passed against the petitioner directing re-verification of the disputed land. However, the said re-verification did not take place as the petitioner refused to participate.

5. On 26.03.2012, the Respondents herein alongwith one Sri. Taling Tatan filed an appeal against the Kebang decision dated 16.03.2012 under Section 46 of the Regulation before the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo. The petitioner herein raised various objections including the preliminary objection of Res-Judicata. The appeal was transferred to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Basar. The said Court vide an order dated 24.02.2014 rejected the said appeal thereby on technical ground granting the liberty to the Respondents herein along with one Mr. Taling Tatan to file an appeal afresh. Thereupon, the said Respondents herein alongwith Sri Taling Tatan preferred an appeal before the Court of the Additional District Judge, Basar. The said Court vide an order dated 24.03.2014 directed the Circle Officer Payum to make necessary spot verification of the disputed land and to find out the real owner in the village level itself. Pursuant to that, an order was passed by the Circle Officer on 24.03.2014 whereby the parties were directed to appear at the spot verification without fail with all their witnesses and evidences in support of their claims so that the physical verification could take place on 26.06.2014. The parties were also directed to appear before the Circle Officer on 23.06.2014 for preliminary hearing.

6. The Petitioner submitted an application before the Circle Officer that he intended to prefer a revision application against the order dated 24.03.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Basar and as such he shall not appear in such physical verification proceedings. The record further reveals that on 14.07.2014, the Circle Officer passed an order holding that the Respondents were the owners of the disputed land and the Petitioner’s claim over the disputed land was unfounded and consequently directed the Petitioner to refrain from taking up any activities of any nature on the disputed land as it belongs to the Respondents who are the actual owners of the said land.

7. The record further shows that against the order of the Additional District Judge dated 24.03.2014 as well as the consequential order dated 24.03