SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Gau) 92

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH, ITANAGAR BENCH
MALASRI NANDI, J.
Dr. Tojum Lollen, S/o. Lt. Nyato Lollen - Petitioner
Versus
Shri Dagmo Karbi, S/o. Lt. Yomdak Karbi & Ors. - Respondents
CRP No. 12 of 2023
Decided On : 08-02-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: T. Jini.
For the Respondents: Kemo Lollen.

The need for documentary evidence in land disputes and the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in resolving such matters.

Headnote:

Keba Decision - Land Dispute - Section 115, Section 151 of the CPC, Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021 - The court discussed the impugned Porwanas dated 07.02.2023 and 09.02.2023 and the subsequent impugned Keba decision, dated 16.02.2023, passed by the Keba under the chairmanship of Head Gaon Burah (HGB), Kombo Tarsu. The court also referred to the gazette notification No. Law/Legn-20/2022 of the government of Arunachal Pradesh, dated 03.08.2022, which introduced the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021 and made amendments to the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945. The court emphasized the need for documentary evidence in land disputes and highlighted the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in resolving such matters.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a complaint alleging encroachment on his agricultural land. The Keba decision, dated 16.02.2023, declared the land in favor of the respondents. The petitioner challenged the decision, claiming the Keba was conducted illegally and arbitrarily.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the revision petition, stating that as no documents were available regarding the boundary or demarcation of the land, it was difficult to determine the actual owner. The court advised the parties to approach the Civil Courts to claim their rights over the disputed land and property.

Issues: Validity of the Keba decision, jurisdiction of the Civil Courts, ownership of disputed land.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for documentary evidence in land disputes and highlighted the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in resolving such matters.

Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the parties were advised to approach the Civil Courts to claim their rights over the disputed land and property.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. T. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 & 2.

2. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the CPC praying for quashing of the impugned Porwanas dated 07.02.2023 and 09.02.2023 and the subsequent impugned Keba decision, dated 16.02.2023, passed by the Keba under the chairmanship of Head Gaon Burah (hereinafter referred to as HGB), Kombo Tarsu.

3. The factual matrix leading to filing of this revision petition is that the petitioner belongs to Kombo Pomte village. Kombo is a village situated at West Siang District. The village is divided into four sub-villages known as Kombo Pomte, Kombo Tarsu, Kombo Papak and Raglam. Though the village is divided into four sub-divisions, there is a community land, wherein the villagers of all the sub-villages have their respective agricultural fields and as such, the agricultural area does not fall under the jurisdiction of any sub-divisions but is under Kombo as a whole. All the four sub-villages have their own respective HGB and Gaon Burahs (GB) to look after their village administrative works and Keba proceedings.

4. On 03.02.2023, the petitioner had filed a complaint before the HGB of Kombo Pomte village alleging that on 02.02.2023 respondent No. 1 has destroyed boundary fencing, of the petitioner’s agricultural land which was erected by him since long time on frivolous allegation that the petitioner had encroached upon his agricultural land. Further, it was also stated therein that the respondent No. 1 had further cut down two/three trees from petitioner’s land and had also extended his boundary and encroached upon petitioner’s land. Therefore, a request was made before the HGB Kombo Pomte village to consider his case after verification of the disputed land.

5. On receipt of the complaint from the petitioner, the HGB of Kombo Pomte village directed the GB-cum-Keba Secretary to verify the disputed land on 04.02.2023. Pursuant to the order of the HGB of Kombo Pomte village, two GBs verified the disputed land and submitted their report to the HGB Kombo Pomte. Thereafter, vide an order, dated 04.02.2023, a status-quo order was passed by the Keba Secretary to maintain status-quo on the disputed land until the matter was decided the Keba. Thereafter, a Porwana was issued on 06.02.2023 asking both the parties to appear before the Keba on 16.02.2023 with their respective witnesses.

6. Subsequently, the petitioner received a Porwana from the office of the HGB, Kombo Tarsu dated 07.02.2023 with a direction to appear before the Keba on 10.02.2023. It was brought to the knowledge of the petitioner that the Porwana was issued on the basis of a complaint made by the respondent No. 1 against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had encroached upon his field and erected fence and further had excavated some of his land with JCB. Subsequently, another complaint was made by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had also encroached upon his Yiko Hoi field by erecting boundary fence and eventually both these complaints were tagged together. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation before the HGB, Kombo Tarsu apprising about the Keba to be held on 16.02.2023 under the chairmanship of HGB, Kombo Pomte on the same disputed land and prayed to cancel the Keba that was to be held on 10.02.2023 on the ground that the matter being sub-judice. The HGB Kombo Tarsu then issued another Porwana dated 09.02.2023 fixing the Keba to be held on 16.02.2023 at Kombo Pomte.

7. The further case of the petitioner is that on 16.02.2023 when the petitioner along with his witnesses had reached the disputed land for spot verification as per the direction of the Keba, he was surprised to know that the HGB Kombo Tarsu had also come to continue with the Keba under his chairmanship. Though several objections were made that the Keba before the HGB Kombo Pomte was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top