JUDGMENT :

1. In this Civil Revision Petition, under section 50 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation 1945, (AFR-1945) read with section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner- Shri Tumsen Basar, has put to challenge the order dated 15.12.2010, passed by the learned Addl. Commissioner, Basar and also the Keba decision dated 25.01.2010, and 06.10.2009, if any.

2. It is to be noted here that vide the impugned order, dated 15.12.2010, the learned Addl. Commissioner, Basar had upheld the Keba decision, dated 25.01.2010, by which the Keba had decided the land dispute in favour of the respondent.

3. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under:-

“The father of the petitioner-Late Dotom Basar had purchased a plot of land, which is known as ‘Silli’ land, from one Karmo Basar in the year 1986, at the cost of one Mithun and Rs, 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only. Almost after two decade, the father of the respondent, namely - Late Donya Basar, had lodged one complaint with the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Basar for settlement of the land dispute. Then the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Basar, had constituted a Keba, vide order dated 11.01.2010, fixing the date for the same on 25.01.2010. On the said date, the petitioner has requested the Keba for an adjournment on the ground that one of his witness namely - Shri Jobom Basar, who was the LAMPO (mediator) of the sale and purchase of the said disputed land, could not appear before the Keba on account of death of his younger brother in that morning. But, the Keba decided to proceed with the matter without examining the vital witness of the present petitioner and decided the matter in favour of the respondent on the basis of unregistered document. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred one appeal before the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner and for rehearing the matter, by constituting a Bango Level Keba. He also filed a petition for restraining the respondent from making any construction on the disputed land. The learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, then restrained construction on the disputed land and fixed the matter for hearing on 06.10.2010. On that day also the petitioner had preferred one petition for remanding the matter to Keba. But, the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner had not passed any order on that day. Thereafter, suddenly, on 15.12.2010, the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner had passed the impugned order upholding the Keba decision, in utter violation of the provision of section 46 of the AFR, 1945.”

4. Being highly aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has preferred this Civil Revision Petition, under section 50 of the AFR-1945 read with section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the following grounds:-

(i) That, the Keba had not afforded opportunity of adducing evidence of Jobom Basar, who was the mediator, and who could not appear before the Keba on that day, on account of sudden demise of his younger brother,

(ii) That, the learned Addl. Commissioner had failed to hear the matter in accordance with the provision of AFR-1945,

(iii) That, the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner had failed to consider the provision of section 46(3) of the AFR and passed the impugned order without issuing notice to the parties, if he sees grounds to doubt the justice of the decision,

(iv) That, the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner had failed to follow the procedure as laid down under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC,

(v) That, the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner had mechanically passed the impugned order and as such the same is not sustainable in law.

5. The respondent has filed affidavit in opposition denying the assertions made in the petition. It is stated that the land dispute had already been settled by Keba vide its decision dated 25.01.2010, and the petitioner has not challenged the same in any appellate forum and as such the same has already attained finality and the order dated 06.10.2010