The doctrine of Res Sub-Judice and the principle of natural justice, particularly the rule against bias, were central to the court's decision in setting aside the Kebang Notice and proceeding.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. Muk Pertin, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. T.Y. Bhutia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel appearing for the respondents’ No. 4, 5 & 6. It is to be mentioned here that respondents No. 1 & 2 have been struck off from array of the case, vide order dated 04.05.2023, and respondent No. 3 has been struck off from array of the case, vide order dated 12.06.2023.

2. In this writ proceeding, instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Dr. Bimal Ratan has put to challenge the Kebang Notice, dated 20.10.2022, issued to him by Customary Court of Ayeng Village and also the Kebang proceeding conducted by the said Customary Court against him.

3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present writ petition is adumbrated herein-below:

“The petitioner, as a plaintiff, has instituted one Title Suit, being T.S. No. 22/2022, before the court of learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Divn.) Pasighat, against the respondent No. 6, namely, Shri Pelsem Tayeng (sole defendant No. 1 in the T.S.) claiming right title and interest over a plot of land, called Dumpop-Sirang land, located at Ayeng Village, under Mebo Circle of East Siang District of Arunachal Pradesh. In the said Title Suit, the learned Civil Judge has issued notice to the respondent No. 6. On receipt of Notice from the Civil Court, the respondent No. 6, who is the Gaonburah of Ayeng Village, has instigated private respondents No. 4 and 5 herein this petition, to claim the suit land and facilitate them to hold a Kebang at Ayeng Village on 20.10.2022, so as to frustrate the Title Suit. The petitioner then apprised the Village Authority to the effect that in respect of the same suit premises, a Civil Suit is pending before the court of Civil Judge, Pasighat.

But, ignoring his contention the Village Authority had issued Notice to him on 20.10.2022, to hold the Kebang.”

4. Being aggrieved, by the said Notice, dated 20.10.2022, of the Village Authority, the petitioner has approached this Court, by filing the present writ petition, on the ground that in connection with the same suit land one Title Suit is pending between him and the respondent No. 6 before the Civil Judge, Pasighat and as such initiation of Kebang proceeding in respect of same suit land is in contravention of the provision of section 10 of the CPC, and that the respondent No. 6 being the party in the Title Suit, is an interested person in the outcome of the suit and he cannot sit as a Judge for his own cause in the Kebang proceeding, wherein also he is involved as party, which is in total violation of the principle of natural justice and also the provision of section 17(1) of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Court Act, 2021.

5. The respondents No. 3 to 6 have filed their affidavit in opposition denying the assertions made in the petition. It is stated that-the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable, and there is no overlapping of the authority to decide the civil cases and Kebang is one of the authority to decide civil case and Civil Judge (Junior Divn.) and Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) and the courts of District Judges are the appellate forum from Kebang decisions. It is also stated that the land in question in the Title Suit No. 22/2022, and in the Kebang and also in this writ proceeding are same, and that before initiation of the Title suit, being TS. No. 22/2022, the Kebang of Ayeng Village is seized of the matter as the land dispute between the respondent No. 6 and the family of Lt. Rangga Borang was going on since long and Kebang proceeding was first initiated on 07.05.2019, to resolve the said dispute, whereas, the Title Suit No. 22/2022 was instituted on 29.08.2022. Therefore, it is contended to dismiss this petition

6. Mr. Muk Pertin, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 6 is the Gaonburah of Ayeng Village and being the Gaonburah he is th