JUDGMENT :

1. In this Civil Revision Petition, under section 50 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation 1945, (AFR-1945), the petitioner-Shri Tumsen Basar has put to challenge the order, dated 21.03.2018, passed by the learned Addl. Commissioner, Yingkiong, Upper Siang Distric, in Keba Appeal No. 01/2015.

2. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, dated 21.03.2018, the learned Addl. Commissioner, Yingkiong had affirm the Keba decision, dated 17.06.2014 and 01.05.2015, by which the Keba had decided that ‘Tako’ paddy field shall be in the permanent possession of Shri Alo Pangkam, the respondent herein.

3. The factual background, being projected by the learned counsel for the parties, which leads to filing of the present petition, is briefly stated as under:-

“There was a dispute between the petitioner and the respondent in respect of a plot of land, which is known as ‘Tako’ paddy field. Pursuant to an order of the Circle Officer, dated 17.04.2015, the Head Gaonburah of Ramsing village, had conducted a local Kebang on 01.05.2015. It was decided in the said Kebang that ‘Tako’ Paddy field shall be in the permanent possession of Shri Alo Pangkam, the respondent herein. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner had preferred an appeal, being Kebang Appeal No.01/2015, before the learned Deputy Commissioner, Upper Siang District. Thereafter, the learned Deputy Commissioner had forwarded the appeal to the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Yingkiong for disposal. Thereafter, vide judgment and order, dated 04.04.2016, the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner; Yingkiong had upheld the decision of Keba held on 17.06.2014, and 01.05.2015. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner had preferred one Civil Revision Petition, being CRP No. 11(AP) 2016. Thereafter, hearing both the parties, this court was pleased to set aside the impugned order of the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Yingkiong and remanded the matter to the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner to hear the parties a fresh and to take a fresh decision. Thereafter, the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner heard the matter a fresh and vide impugned order dated 21.03.2018, the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner was pleased to dismissed the appeal by passing exactly the replica of the earlier order, dated 04.04.2016.”

4. Being highly aggrieved by the impugned order, dated 04.04.20, the petitioner has preferred this Civil Revision Petition under section 50 of the AFR-1945, on the following grounds:-

(i) That, the learned court below erred both in law and fact, by passing the impugned order dated 21.03.2018, which is exactly the same with the earlier order dated 04.04.2016, even though the case took a different turn after cross-examination of the witnesses;

(ii) That, the learned court below had failed to appreciate that the Kebang would not have certainly directed the respondent to pay any money as a price of the disputed property, if he was indeed the actual owner and the only issue the petitioner was agitating was that the Kebang could not have compelled the petitioner to sell the property at a sum of Rs. 10,000/ only.

(iii) That, the learned court below had failed to frame any issue and not allowed the petitioner to exhibit any documents and thereby cause grave miscarries of justice;

(iv) That, the learned court below had failed to appreciate the facts by arriving at a conclusion that prime witness of the petitioner Shri Kaling Apang being only one year old in the year 1974 could not have effected sale of the disputed land to the petitioner, where as evidence reveals that in the year 1974 Kaling Apang was a married person and his second daughter was born in the year 1979.

(v) That, the so called documents based upon which the respondent has made claim was not exhibited in terms of Evidence Act and as such it cannot be accepted in evidence.

(vi) That, the learned court below had ignored material evidence on record and arrived at a perverse