Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT ITANAGAR BENCH
KARDAK ETE, J.
Kirri Dini Bogum S/o Late Takir Dini – Petitioner
Versus
Jamar Karlo S/o Late Taja Karlo – Respondent
CRP No. 20 of 2022
Decided On : 13-06-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 - Section 46, (3) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Ownership over land - Opportunity to adduce evidence - Delay of 12 years - Petitioner has assailed order passed whereby claims of petitioner has been rejected by upholding various Keba decisions including Banggo Level Keba decision and on ground of delay of 12 years – No opportunity was granted to petitioner to adduce evidence or make any arguments before impugned order was passed – Para 6.
Finding of the Court:
Summon was issued indicating that appeal will be heard by fixing date, however, mere mentioning of provision without resorting to procedural law in a civil proceedings may not be suffice - Not affording an opportunity to rebut claims of parties by allowing them to lead evidence either oral or documentary shall negate very foundation requirements of not only provisions but also lead to miscarriage of justice - If an appellate Court refuses to hear appellant or omits to hear appellant and disposes of appeal on basis of Keba decision without considering grievances of appellant, then, disposal of such an appeal will be arbitrary - If decision of Keba is considered, de horse grievance of appellant, appellate Court’s decision will be arbitrary - There is no room for mechanical acceptance of Keba decision by appellate Court - Impugned order is not sustainable in eye of law and accordingly, same is interfered with by setting aside impugned order passed.
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. Heard Ms. D. Tamuk, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Bam, learned counsel for the sole respondent.
2. By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order, dated 23.03.2022, bearing No. LKB/JK/46-09/2018/75-II passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Siang District, Likabali, whereby the claims of the petitioner has been rejected by upholding the various Keba decisions including the Banggo Level Keba decision dated 30.05.2018 and on the ground of delay of 12 years.
3. Leaving aside the unnecessary facts, the case of the petitioner in short is that in the year 2018, the petitioner on coming to know that the sole respondent has been claiming the ownership over the plot of land which belonged to the petitioner and his family and also the Keba decision dated 19.06.2006 and various other Kebas were held in respect of the petitioner’s land in absence of the petitioner and his family members and without the knowledge of the petitioner’s late father or any of his family member, between the sole respondent and other individuals in respect of the petitioner’s plot of land inherited from his father, the petitioner had filed a complaint on 11.04.2018 before the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Siang District, Likabali against the sole respondent for illegally grabbing his plot of land. Accordingly, a Keba was conducted on 30.05.2018 to decide the ownership over the disputed land. In the said Keba, no concrete conclusion could be arrived at on the ground, that 3 local Keba had already been conducted over the same plot of land and the case had also been filed before the Hon’ble High Court with regard to the same land and the Hon’ble High Court has decided the said case in favour of the respondent’s late father and the Magistrate has also countersigned and the same has risen after a period of 12 years. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Magistrate since the Keba members were unable to take a fresh decision. Thereafter, the matter was taken up for hearing by the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Siang District, Likabali on 23.03.2022 and came to the conclusion that there already exists previous Keba decisions bearing order No. LBK/JK-01/99/344, dated 19.06.2006, JMSC Order No. LKB/CR-01/08/260, dated 01.08.2008 and the Hon’ble High Court vide order, dated 15.06.2011 passed in CRP 28 (AP) 2008 in favour of the respondent and that the claims of the petitioner cannot be admitted after a period of 12 years. Accordingly, the Keba decision, dated 30.05.2018 was up-held in view of the earlier Keba decisions, as stated above. Hence, this present petition, assailing the order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Siang District, Likabali.
4. Ms. D. Tamuk, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Commissioner has failed to consider the so-called Keba decision dated 19.06.2006, which was between the father of the respondent and one Smti. Yai Kipa in respect of the land in which Smti. Yai Kipa was allowed to stay and the petitioner were never a party to the Keba and the Deputy Commissioner while coming to the conclusion that the same plot of land was initially disputed in between Taja Karlo and late Tado Dini and decided in the Kebang decision dated 21.07.1999 failed to consider the fact that there was no record of any Keba decision dated 21.07.1999 and in any case, the petitioner’s family was never a party to the said Keba and as such, this Keba decision have no binding effect upon the petitioner. The Deputy also failed to consider the fact that the Hon’ble High Court did not decide any dispute regarding the title of the land in question and as such, the finding of the learned Deputy Commissioner that the Hon’ble High Court in CRP No. 28 (AP) 2008 had also decided the dispute is also totally misconceived and in any case, the said CRP was filed by the late father of the respondent herein against one Yomte Chisi and the petitioner’s family was
Not affording an opportunity to rebut claims of parties by allowing them to lead evidence either oral or documentary shall negate very foundation requirements of not only provisions but also lead to ....
The need for documentary evidence in land disputes and the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in resolving such matters.
Point of law: Every appeal preferred after expiry of period specified in Sec. 5-A, of Act shall be accompanied by a separate application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit sworn to by....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Additional Deputy Commissioner did not have jurisdiction to decide the civil dispute over the land in question, as per the Arunachal Prade....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
